RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #391  
Old 02-08-2018, 11:43 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 863
Default

Matt

Without giving away plots what the rough outline for war start and end dates?

is there a major event flow chart?
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Solider.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 02-08-2018, 10:40 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 804
Default

Yes, there is. I have to dig though both boards where the TL is posted and transfer it here.

4 Sep 1985 is the day it all started.

7 May 1987 is the Battle of Wichita, where the Soviets played the role of Model and Manstein. Schwartzkopf was Zhukov. Soviet defeat there began the long road south to the Rio Grande and Brownsville, ending in early Oct 1989 with the surrender of the Brownsville Pocket.

14 Oct 1989 is when the Soviets in the Northern Theater surrendered, and the Armistice went into effect a week later.

4 Sep every year is known as Resistance Day, and is a National Holiday in both the U.S. and Canada.

14 Oct 1989 is Victory Day, and is also a holiday in both countries.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 02-09-2018, 12:15 PM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
Schwartzkopf was Zhukov
I wonder how his and Powell career went in this time frame
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Solider.
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 02-09-2018, 08:50 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 804
Default

Both retired as Five-Star Generals. Powell ran Third Army in Louisiana and Mississippi, later on, in Texas-he ran the final campaign at Brownsville. Both became Chairman of the JCS, but Schwartzkopf dismissed several offers from both parties to run for office (Senator from FL, Governor of FL, and the Presidency). Powell, though did run for President in 2004 and was elected. Re-elected in 2008 and succeeded by Hillary Clinton in 2012 (who won reelection in 2016).
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 02-11-2018, 11:20 PM
RN7 RN7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,112
Default

I have a few questions Matt.

Firstly how quickly did the USAF change its low level attack tactics?

The reason I am asking is that in the 1980's (and 1990's) the USAF (and Navy and Marines) were not well trained or equipped in low level attack missions against hostile forces with intact air defences. This was mainly due to the fact that they mostly used precision guided munitions including anti-radar weapons fired/dropped from high altitudes to degrade enemy infrastructure and air defences. We saw this in the First Gulf War were US strike aircraft such as the F-15E, F-111F and F-117A flew at altitudes of 15,000 to 20,000 feet using LANTIRN and Pave Track targeting pods, as opposed to British Tornado's with TIALD who went in as low as 100 feet to hit Iraqi airfields with JP-233 cluster munitions. The British were also doing this at night and this tactic pretty much explains why British Tornado casualties were fairly high in the early part of the Gulf War. Dedicated US ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 and Marine Harrier's were only used after the Iraqi Air Force and air defences were effectively wiped out or degraded. The US tactic was highly effective in the First Gulf War, but in the Red Dawn scenario the US does not enjoy the luxury of total air domination against an inferior foe and the plentiful availability of precision guided munitions.

Secondly to what degree did the USAF alter the fundamentals of its tactics? US aerial attack tactics generally have pilots going into combat zones in large groups, covered by protective fire that busts holes in enemy air defenses. In your Red Dawn scenario the USAF is using tactics similar to the RAF designed for combat against Soviet Bloc forces in Europe, by flying in small groups of two or three aircraft low and fast over the terrain, hitting the target and then streaking out again. Your not coming in at tree top level but still much lower than the USAF generally is trained for. In NATO the British were widely regarded as the best tactical strike air force in Europe. Did the USAF copy this from the British or where they using British advisors?

Thirdly why do US strike aircraft have such relatively low casualty rates?

If we go by the First Gulf War which is the first time that US forces went up against a powerful Soviet designed air defence system on a massive scale, the US achieved total air domination very quickly. Baring in mind the Iraqi Air Force was inferior in training and equipment to the USAF in every level, their air defence radars, both Soviet and French, were not top of the line by 1991 and their performance was known to Allies, and their SAM's were older or "export" versions of Soviet SAM's this was no surprise. But as we seen from British experiences in the Gulf War they lost quite a few aircraft when they had to go low at them while Iraq still had an intact air defence network. In Red Dawn the US does not enjoy air domination over a lesser enemy (the Soviets at least), and does not numerically outnumber the Soviets, and is also facing a more effective air defence network than anything the Iraqi's ever had. In Red Dawn I could see the USAF (and Navy and Marines) quickly achieving air superiority over the Soviets and the others in large parts of occupied America for a whole load of reasons, but I think the casualty rate of all strike aircraft would be a lot higher.
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:14 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 804
Default

OK: here's a few answers:

1) The F-111 (and A-6) squadrons mainly fly at night. It's what they're trained for, and they also exploit gaps in enemy lines-or go in along unit boundaries where one unit may not be talking to their neighbors-especially if it's, say, East Germans and Nicaraguans, to give one example. The deep-strike people go in at low level always.

2) Strikes in daytime go in this way because the mission calls for it: it's BAI for the most part, and also CAS. Not to mention that Weasels are in short supply, and not every strike can have F-4Gs (or Navy A-7s or Marine Hornets) with antiradar missiles. If it's a CAS run, the Army or Marines do the AF a favor and dump artillery or MLRS rockets onto enemy air defense assets, and tank crews get told to take out any air defense vehicles (ZSU-23s and SA-9 or -13 launchers) they see. A 105 or 120 HEAT round does a wonder on those.....

3) This squadron's loss rate is lower than expected, mainly due to good leadership in the air (though the early days were rough: two COs and an XO were KIA, and there are exactly ten pilots or GIBs left who were flying on Day One), good tactics, and having support assets (Weasels, A-7s doing IRON HAND, or Marine Hornets for flak suppression) around. It's been two weeks since the squadron took losses (two birds down with one pilot KIA and the other three crew rescued), but that won't last. if more SA-11s or ZSU-30-2s show (Tunguskas), that makes things...ugly.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage

Last edited by Matt Wiser; 02-14-2018 at 12:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:41 AM
RN7 RN7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,112
Default

Matt what variant of the F-4 Phantom are you supposed to be flying?

Even in Red Dawn the establishment of American air superiority is going to happen due to the fact that American 4th generation fighters are better than what the Soviets have. Even a 3-1 superiority in fighters won't help the Soviets and I don't think the Soviets will have such a superiority in numbers over North America. Any American commander with even half a brain is also going to go after Soviet radars and shut down their SAM batteries. To be honest I don't think this would take so long either.

The F-16 powered by General Electric engines (especially F-16 Block 30 from 1987, Block 40 from 1988) are superior in agility to any Soviet fighter including the Mig-29 at Within Visual Range (WVR) air combat, and in the right hands will slaughter most Soviet Bloc fighters. The less agile but faster and more powerful F-15C (and F-15E) is also better at WVR than most Soviet fighters, and is aerodynamically at least a match for a Su-27 at Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air combat and better than a Mig-25/31, and also with better sensors and better trained pilots. Add the navy and Marine F-14's and F-18's into the mix and America is not a good place to be for a Soviet fighter pilot. The presence of F-15's with AWAC direction would also be a major deterrent to the use of Soviet strategic bombers over America.

Knocking out Soviet radars would be a priority for the American's, leaving Soviet ground forces exposed to the type of air degradation that you are talking about. The F-111, F-4G Wild Weasel and F-16's (with HTS pods) carrying AGM-88 HARM would effectively shut down Soviet air defence radars very quickly. In the early invasion period the US anti-radiation missiles would be the AGM-45 Shrike, but from 1985 the AGM-88 HARM is put into production, and with a range of up to 150km as opposed to no more than 45km for AGM-45B, it would be a game changer. At this time the F-117A is also in service, and the F-15E from 1988, and might be brought into service even earlier in the Red Dawn scenario. As we know that most of America's military power and industry is still existent, then the Americans will be hitting the Soviet's hard and in strength, even in the earlier part of the war. I would say that in less than one year the Soviet's would have withdrawn most of their most effective air defence capabilities to rear areas out of effective reach of US air strikes, leaving frontline forces highly exposed to US air strikes. Here is where you are going to see F-4's, A-7's, A-10's and Harriers bombing and strafing Soviet Bloc ground forces as you describe.
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 02-15-2018, 09:28 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 804
Default

Flying the E with TIESO for AGM-65, the leading edge slats, ARN-101 DMAS, improved cockpit controls for easier use of AIM-9 and AIM-7 (the 556 cockpit) , and, of course, the gun.

Another reason we go in low? Ordnance loads require it. Mark-82 Snakeyes and M-117Rs, the occasional Mark-84 AIR, and CBUs or, on occasion, Napalm.

AGM-78 is still in service with a larger warhead than either HARM or Shrike. Shrike will damage a radar. HARM or Standard-ARM will kill it. Most HARMs in service TTL are the AGM-88A, with a few Bs. Some Shrikes have been fitted with HARM electronics to make them more effective against "Teenage" SAMs like SA-11.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:53 AM
RN7 RN7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
Flying the E with TIESO for AGM-65, the leading edge slats, ARN-101 DMAS, improved cockpit controls for easier use of AIM-9 and AIM-7 (the 556 cockpit) , and, of course, the gun.
That would be the best option, and the F-4E is also still a capable fighter if it needs to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
Another reason we go in low? Ordnance loads require it. Mark-82 Snakeyes and M-117Rs, the occasional Mark-84 AIR, and CBUs or, on occasion, Napalm.

AGM-78 is still in service with a larger warhead than either HARM or Shrike. Shrike will damage a radar. HARM or Standard-ARM will kill it. Most HARMs in service TTL are the AGM-88A, with a few Bs.
Without trying to sound to "smarty pants", for low-level bombing you would have to use the M117R and the Mark-84 AIR or your aircraft might not escape the bombs blast pattern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
Some Shrikes have been fitted with HARM electronics to make them more effective against "Teenage" SAMs like SA-11.
The SA-11 Gadfly (Buk) would be a threat against incoming low-altitude fighter-bombers like the F-4E, but the threat it poses would be dependent upon if the radar is actually turned on or not. The SA-11's radar (9S35 Fire Dome) can track up to 4 different targets at ranges of 95km, and the SA-11 (Buk & Buk-M1) can engage aircraft at 35 km and at altitudes between 150 and 22,000 metres (less with Buk). However firing up an SA-11 launcher from start with no warning will take 5 minutes, reaction time if the radar is turned on is 15-18 seconds and reload time is 12 minutes, and this is with a well drilled crew. But Fire Dome's maximum range is also well short of the maximum range the AGM-88 HARM missile, and American Wild Wiesel's will be patrolling well beyond Fire Dome's range, while the SA-11 is considered to have a low probability in defeating a HARM missile. So basically it's a lose-lose situation for Soviet SA-11 crews as if they turn on the radar they will get a HARM up their rears, and if the radar is switched off they won't be able to react in time to an incoming air raid.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 02-16-2018, 10:06 AM
RN7 RN7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,112
Default

What happened to US stocks of Pershing II and GLCM that were deployed in Europe in the Red Dawn scenario?

With Europe remaining neutral except for Britain, most of them must have been sent back to America. 234 Pershing II were based in West Germany, and 448 BGM-109G GLCM in Belgium, Britain, Italy, Netherlands and West Germany in the 1980's. I believe there were 276 Pershing II and about 500 GLCM built in total. Maybe the UK based GLCM's and a few dozen Pershing II were kept in the UK to reinforce the British nuclear deterrent, but the rest must have been shipped back to the US.

Although nuclear armed they could be fitted with conventional warheads. The GLCM's were relatively slow but long ranged (2,500km), and with their guidance system and low radar cross section were notoriously difficult to track with the technology available at this time. The Pershing II could hit a target 1,800km a way in 10 minutes. They would be an alternative option to bombing and a nasty surprise for the Soviets anywhere in North America.
Reply With Quote
  #401  
Old Yesterday, 09:26 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 804
Default

Here's a fact file on U.S. INF during the war, which should answer your question:


One aspect of the prewar and wartime periods was the redeployment of U.S. Nuclear Forces from Europe. The one deployed GLCM Wing in the U.K, the 501st Tactical Missile Wing, remained at RAF Greenham Common, while the 487th TMW redeployed to the U.K., from Sicily. One additional wing, the 485th TMW, instead of deploying to Belgium, was deployed to the Republic of Korea, to provide INF coverage for U.S. forces in the Far East, and deter any aggression from North Korea. The two remaining GLCM Wings, the 38th and 486th, remained in the U.S. during the war. The 38th was deployed in the Southwest, with its missiles directed at potential targets in Mexico, while the 486th was home-based at Eglin AFB, FL, with its missiles aimed at targets in Cuba and Central America. Not only were nuclear GLCMs assigned to the CONUS based wings, but a wartime program to convert nuclear-armed GLCMs to conventional warheads bore fruit. Three versions were developed by General Dynamics and deployed: the GLCM-C base variant with the same 1,000 pound warhead developed for the TLAM-C, the C1 variant with the 500-pound warhead used on the Harpoon anti-ship missile, and the C3 with the submunition warhead originally developed for the TLAM-D. Only the three conventional warhead variants were used in combat. However, the nuclear armed versions acted as a reliable theater nuclear deterrent in both North America and the Far East.

The Pershing IIs were also redeployed from Europe: two battalions were redeployed to Fort Sill, OK, initially. The 1-81 FA was then deployed to Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, while the 1-41 FA went to Fort Stewart, GA. However, 3-84 FA was deployed to the ROK, while 3-9 FA remained at Fort Sill as the Pershing II training unit and as a standby operational battalion. The mobile Pershings provided a theater ballistic nuclear deterrent, aimed at targets in Mexico, Cuba, and other locations in Central America, and fulfilled their mission without having to fire a single missile in anger. The 3-84 FA remained in Korea for the duration of the war, as a continued commitment to the defense of South Korea, and to reassure the ROK government of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. While Pershing units were high-priority targets for Spetsnatz and Cuban SOF, and a number of missiles were attacked, the majority of Pershings survived the war, having maintained a viable nuclear deterrent in a theater that the system's designers, not to mention its users, never expected.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (2 members and 2 guests)
Matt Wiser, RN7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.