WP Conventional Bombing Raids

[Rainbow Six]

Afternoon all,

Wondered what everyone's opinions were on the likliehood of the WP Air Forces carrying out conventional bombing attacks on targets behind the front lines (e.g. airbases in the UK and the Netherlands, British and Dutch ports, POMCUS sites etc) before the War goes nuclear? Would Soviet strategic and medium range bombers be able to cause significant amounts of damage in rear areas or would NATO air defences be likely to intercept any attacking aircraft before they could get near enough to their targets to cause much damage?

I've always thought that it would most likely be something in between, with some bombers managing to get through and hit their targets, particularly those using air launched missiles which they could fire from some distance away, but I'm no expert on the subject and would be interested in other opinions on this...

Cheers

[Abbott Shaull]

Much like how many licks it take to get to the center of those lolly pop, the world my hopefully never know....

[pmulcahy11b]

While the Soviets had a decent number of medium bombers, they weren't exactly blessed with large numbers of heavy strategic bombers. By Western Standards, even bombers like the Tu-22M Backfire are medium bombers. Also, a good portion of the Soviet bomber fleet were configured to carry small numbers (1-4) of large stand-off land attack and antishipping missiles (not as accurate or stealthy as true cruise missiles) instead of conventional free-fall bombs, and their bomber fleet of the time had no capability to launch precision-guided munitions. However, a good number of their stand-off missiles are supersonic, very high speed missiles. The Soviet doctrine called for large amounts of light bombers like the Su-24 and fighter-bombers to attack most rear-area and battlefield targets; the medium and the few heavy bombers were largely reserved for command and control nodes, nuclear weapons sites, some of the larger airfields, targets farther away such as England and France, and (especially) US aircraft carriers.

In the case of attacks on US carriers, the Soviets planned to use their bombers armed with stand-off missiles in large waves, knowing full well that they would lose a lot of aircraft in the process. They felt that taking out a carrier was worth the losses. The stand-off missiles in this case stood a good chance of being nuclear-tipped.

The Blackjack, on the other hand, breaks the rules in this case. It would be very rare at best in the T2K timeline, but it is a conventional strategic bomber larger than the B-1 (but similar in design) that is quite capable of filling the conventional heavy bomber role. I would think the Soviets would spare their few Blackjacks for heavy troop concentrations, airfield bombardment, and other actions which could tip the balance of a battle one way of another. Long-range raids into Alaska might be another role. However, it still does not have smart bomb or PGM capability.

[Raellus]

I think that the Soviets would rely on stand-off ASM attacks. Medium and/or heavy bombers attempting to attack targets deep in NATO's rear areas would, IMO, be slaughtered by NATO interceptors and SAMs. I think low-level raids by SU-24s and SU-30s would be more common and possibly more effective.

[jester]

The limited Pact long range capability was for the most part used for attacking naval assets. Heck, they recently resumed patrols encroaching on Hawaii and the UK and Washington State with some of them. These assets would be used more for dealing with the US Carrier threat.

As for in theater targets, we have the Scud, the Frog and a host of other short and medium range missiles which is what they were intended for.

I would also think they would utilize some of their Speitzies or similiar desante type troops for other special targets.

And then we have the Soviet Submarine Threat as well. And that is part of their mission to engage targets such are shipping centers, ports, railyards, airfields and oil production centers with either cruise missiles or tactical missiles, as we are shown in the 2.0 rules that includes a list of nuclear targets.

Although, it would be a cool campaign to have the PCs selected as members of a special comando/raiding force to land and eliminate a facility such as a low yeild refinery....but a refinery none the less that is producing fuel to give the side some airpower which can tip the balance of power in the region. <Think a mission like the storey "Guns of Navaronne.">

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by jester

The limited Pact long range capability was for the most part used for attacking naval assets. Heck, they recently resumed patrols encroaching on Hawaii and the UK and Washington State with some of them. These assets would be used more for dealing with the US Carrier threat.

As for in theater targets, we have the Scud, the Frog and a host of other short and medium range missiles which is what they were intended for.

I would also think they would utilize some of their Speitzies or similiar desante type troops for other special targets.

And then we have the Soviet Submarine Threat as well. And that is part of their mission to engage targets such are shipping centers, ports, railyards, airfields and oil production centers with either cruise missiles or tactical missiles, as we are shown in the 2.0 rules that includes a list of nuclear targets.

Although, it would be a cool campaign to have the PCs selected as members of a special comando/raiding force to land and eliminate a facility such as a low yeild refinery....but a refinery none the less that is producing fuel to give the side some airpower which can tip the balance of power in the region. <Think a mission like the storey "Guns of Navaronne.">

We get them on an irregular basis up here too.
Especially whenever there are business talks or a litt fuzz on a diplomatic level when Oslo ( our capitol city ) states something negative on the ongoing Russian security ops in the Caucasus or their policies otherwise .Normally a single 4 engine comes in for a trip along the exact limit of our airspace and skirts for a little while .We dispatch F16s to intercept and shadow them .They stay about 300-1000 feet apart for a few minutes and then the Ruskies brake off and head out to sea and home .They do it to test response times,gage our reactions and to let us know that the Bear is still out there -only its slow due to a prolonged hibernation.

But sometimes they escalate ,one incident had the propellor blade from a TU aircraft litterally hit the wing of our fighter and lodge in the F16 fuselage like shrapnel .( They came that close but our guy didnt veer and let the violate our airspace ) .

Also a few times they have conducted "joint naval/airforce exercises" in our region and simulated "bombing runs" which basically means posturing for a ( nuclear) missile launch on one of our northern cities and then at the last possible minute breaking off before entering our airspace .

That said - in the last 12 years relations have improved immensly .There is business cooperation,diplomatic forums and even joint military exercises now.Heck ,in 98 we even had a Russian platoon seconded to our battallion in Bosnia for a few weeks.It was the first time the Norwegian military had had leadership over Russian troops since the Viking ages.

[Rainbow Six]

Cheers guys.

[Mock26]

Originally Posted by headquarters

We get them on an irregular basis up here too.
Especially whenever there are business talks or a litt fuzz on a diplomatic level when Oslo ( our capitol city ) states something negative on the ongoing Russian security ops in the Caucasus or their policies otherwise .Normally a single 4 engine comes in for a trip along the exact limit of our airspace and skirts for a little while .We dispatch F16s to intercept and shadow them .They stay about 300-1000 feet apart for a few minutes and then the Ruskies brake off and head out to sea and home .They do it to test response times,gage our reactions and to let us know that the Bear is still out there -only its slow due to a prolonged hibernation.

But sometimes they escalate ,one incident had the propellor blade from a TU aircraft litterally hit the wing of our fighter and lodge in the F16 fuselage like shrapnel .( They came that close but our guy didnt veer and let the violate our airspace ) .

Also a few times they have conducted "joint naval/airforce exercises" in our region and simulated "bombing runs" which basically means posturing for a ( nuclear) missile launch on one of our northern cities and then at the last possible minute breaking off before entering our airspace .

That said - in the last 12 years relations have improved immensly .There is business cooperation,diplomatic forums and even joint military exercises now.Heck ,in 98 we even had a Russian platoon seconded to our battallion in Bosnia for a few weeks.It was the first time the Norwegian military had had leadership over Russian troops since the Viking ages.

Back in 1986 I was visiting relatives in Stockholm and we took a day trip out to the island of Gotland. Shortly after we landed and while we were taxiing to the terminal we were suddenly told to stop our plane. My cousin (who was piloting the plane) did just that. He then pointed to where a couple of military jets were taxiing to the runway and then taking off. As they were taking off two small black dots streaked by off in the distance.

The way my cousin explained it to me was that there was an on-going dispute between Sweden and the Soviet Union on where exactly Swedish territorial waters/airspace ended and international began. If I remember correctly the Soviets said it was measured off of the mainland and the Swedes said it was also measured off of the island of Gotland. So, every once in a while the Soviets would send up some planes and test the response time of the Swedes.

The best part was when we were told to stop one of the jets taxied near us and the pilot glanced over and then did a double take. I was in the co-pilot seat, wearing an old World War II era leather flying helmet, goggles, and wearing a kamikaze bandanna across my forhead!

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Afternoon all,

Wondered what everyone's opinions were on the likliehood of the WP Air Forces carrying out conventional bombing attacks on targets behind the front lines (e.g. airbases in the UK and the Netherlands, British and Dutch ports, POMCUS sites etc) before the War goes nuclear? Would Soviet strategic and medium range bombers be able to cause significant amounts of damage in rear areas or would NATO air defences be likely to intercept any attacking aircraft before they could get near enough to their targets to cause much damage?
Cheers

In my limited experience of WW3 wargaming, I would go all-out as the Pact air commander to hit the NATO rear ASAP. Those American POMCUS sites are really juicy targets-- if I can negate those, I take out a huge amount of NATO's second-stage counter-offensive capabilities.

In GDW's Third World War games, my preferred tactic was to send a desant division or two after them. That could prevent an American division or three from showing up at all in the game, and keep the French busy for weeks. If the game had made it possible, I would also have used Spetsnaz and persistent chemical strikes.

Headquarters and supply dumps would also be big targets, they just weren't in that game.

Of course, in order to get to any of those, one needs to hit airbases and air-defense bases, too.

So, yeah, if the Pact has any air capability at all, they need to get it active ASAP. Probably not a winner of an idea, given that NATO should be alerted and may defend West German airspace from the get-go, but ya gotta try.

[Webstral]

We should remember that by December 1, 1996 the Soviets have than a year of war under their belts. The Soviet bomber force is likely to be smaller than it was in mid-1995, although I would be glad to discuss the idea that stepped-up production and improved ground crew performance may have replaced losses and improved sortie rates. The ground crews and aircraft crews definitely will have more experience. Doctrine may have changed. In my as-yet-incomplete work on the Sino-Soviet War, I try to have a look at the Soviet strategic bombing experience in China. During the 1995-1996 winter stalemate, the Soviets attempt to break the deadlock with conventional strategic bombing. I think it’s reasonable to assume that in the ever-evolving contest between Soviet bombers and Chinese air defenses the Soviets will have made adaptations to their modus operendi.

Regarding air operations against the West, the opposing forces will not be in the same condition as if they had initiated hostilities from a standing start or even a deliberate build-up to single-theater operations. The interaction between Soviet, Chinese, and Western (observers and volunteers) air power and defenses in the Far East will yield some changes to pre-war norms. Not being an airman, I can’t give a lot of detail. However, I postulate that the Soviets will try whatever yielded success in China. The Chinese, who are principally on the receiving end of the beating for at least the first eight months of the Sino-Soviet War, are likely to be the first party to embrace real change to pre-war doctrine. I further postulate that said change will push the Chinese in the direction of greater pilot independence and greater flexibility in air operations planning. Western volunteers flying air defense missions against Soviet bombers and escorts certainly will contaminate the PLAAF’s climate. The Soviets probably will respond in kind once the effects of Chinese adaptations are noticed. Each side will examine the other side’s adaptations and respond accordingly.

By the time the Soviets start attacking strategic targets in Western Europe with bombers, the Soviets will be in better condition to penetrate NATO air defenses from the standpoint of crews, tactics, and techniques. I’m not prepared to speculate about force levels at the moment. The West, for their part, will have been able to observe the evolution in the Soviet bomber force in the Far East. How well NATO adapts to the insights gleaned from the Chinese experience is a matter for conjecture. I’d wager that each national air force does something a little different, although SACEUR and his commanders will act as a centripetal force drawing the various Allied reactions to the Soviet evolution into a common sphere. Time is another issue. How long does it take for the West to observe changes in Soviet air power, devise new tactics and techniques, then disseminate the new material effectively? I have no answers to that one.

Webstral