[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

No argument that he may have missed the boat here. I think it was his book where the A-10s were pretty ubiquitous?

Yeah, the Soviets in the book call the A-10 the "Devil's Cross" and Clancy describes the aircraft killing multiple AFVs with a single strafing run on a couple of different occasions.

Clancy also has a flight of German F-104 take out a bridge with bombs.

I reply to your wargaming experience regarding aircraft v. ADNs further on.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Um, yeah, I'd forgotten about that. How long were they stopped?

I'd have to look it up to give you an exact figure, but I think it was for a couple of days, at least- long enough, in any case, to require a reevaluation of objectives and unit mission taskings.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I suspect this may have been a result of sticking to a handful of characters, and IIRC the main Soviet point-of-view character was an Army commander? If so, that could have meant he just didn't deal with WP commanders? Or, if he was a Front commander, that falls apart, since there would be 2-3 EG divisions in his command.

That's a good point. I liked the different POVs. It was easy to follow the multiple threads. One additional nitpick is that the American ASW frigate captain goes from a major POV character to a supporting character with the introduction of the Vietnam vet ASW helicopter pilot, a little over halfway through the book.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I would only defend the first bit: ISTR the weatherman lost his prewar fiancee/girlfriend to a rapist, so he could have been particularly enraged-- all the revenge fantasies of however many months given a chance to enact? I remember thinking the last part was cringey or a rescuer-fantasy, even at age 18. The middle bit... eh, possible?

You're right. I'd forgotten that bit about the weatherman's backstory. Makes sense that he'd take out his rage on the Soviet para rapist. But he only executes the main offender. One of the Marines kills the other two EPWs by stabbing them through the neck. It seemed over-the-top to me.

Another example of cringey dialogue from the final few pages of the book. A marine general says to the pregnant rape victim, "They told me you were beautiful. I have a daughter about your age." Creepy.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Is this the F-15 test pilot who shoots down satellites? It's still 1986 when it's written, what other women combatants might he have used?

That's the one. You're right in that c.86, combat branches were still closed to women, so maybe that one of my criticisms wasn't fair.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

It's a fair cop. That's why the war movie cliche includes a Jewish guy, someone with an unspellable Polish name, the Italian guy from New York City, etc., in addition to the Texan and the smart guy. (Just don't be the next one to show off your girlfriend's picture!)

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

+ I rather liked Clancy's style of cutting back and forth between several characters and points of view. It does reduce the depth of each character and their arc, but it also allows the reader to learn a lot more about the war as a whole.
(It works very well, IMO, in his thrillers, as you're seeing so many threads and wondering, "Oh, boy, how is THIS going to show up later?"

The jumping around and different POVs worked for me too. For the kind of story he was trying to tell, that technique was pretty much a must.

He didn't really provide much of a timeline, though. So the reader kind of has to pick up on context clues and then deduce how long has passed since the last episode involved a particular character. It's still not terribly clear by the end of the book how long the war lasted. 4 weeks, six weeks, two months? Longer?

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

IIRC, the "main" characters were the USAF weather LT in Iceland, a USN frigate commander, and a Soviet general (Front or Army CG?). We can see the war at sea and in Iceland at the lowest level, then the main event in Germany at the highest level. I remember there are other threads, but not who or where.
+ By sticking to that high level in Germany, he avoids characters with "plot immunity"-- that F19 pilot won't get shot down on mission #3, a tank commander won't have to survive 5 tanks blowing up under them, and so forth.

Good points and, in the main, I agree. There was also a USN attack sub driver with a pretty big part.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

- Back to the air defenses, I'm currently playing two board wargames by email, with differing conclusions on air defenses. In Red Storm, I've played about 5 scenarios, and SAMs on both sides are more planning nuisance than threat, due to both sides' having jammers and dedicated SEAD planes (NATO being a bit better at the latter). My opponent is certainly frustrated with the game's portrayal of SAMs relative to AAA and fighters. In 1985: under an iron sky, I'm playing NATO's center section, and it feels like NATO's air forces are terrified, since anything I do with them will be swarmed by MiGs or slammed by zillions of SAMs, or both. Maybe later in the first week, but on Day 4, I am way outgunned.

Yeah, I don't think we've seen a true modern, high intensity, conventional war between 1st world military powers in real life, so it's really difficult to play out how it would all go down. We can look at the closest thing, but I think we often draw the wrong conclusions. For example, I think a lot of people assume NATO air forces would roll over the Soviets' air defenses because of how easily the Iraqi's air-defenses were destroyed during Desert Storm.

That said, Clancy pretty much omits mention of conventional, non-radar-guided AAA in the book. All the NATO aircraft fly nap of the earth to avoid SAMs. Any Soviet radar not turned off is zapped by ARMs. IRL, over Iraq, Coalition strike pilots learned the hard way that "dumb" AAA was a much greater threat to their aircraft than radar-guided SAMs and consequently, once the Iraqi SAM networks were sufficiently degraded, very few missions were flown below 5000 feet. Clancy didn't know about that when he wrote the book, but the Israelis had learned the same thing in their various wars against their Arab neighbors, so it seems strange that this hard-earned lesson was ignored in the book.

-