Article on how the Soviet Navy planned to fight WWIII

[RN7]

Yup they relied on bombers and subs with anti-ship missiles to take out the US fleet as they knew their own surface fleet wouldn't stand a snowballs chance against US carrier battle groups. Saturation attacks by bombers were the best way of neutralising American carrier power, as they went down the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missile route in the 70's but soon realised bombers with anti-ship missiles were far better and cheaper to do the job. Forced the US Navy to be proactive about knocking them out by planing to send carriers through the GIUK gap into the Norwegian Sea and even Arctic waters in wartime.

[Olefin]

It also shows that the Soviets were basically figuring in the loss of a whole regiment of bombers per attack on a carrier no matter what the result - expecting a minimum of a 50 percent loss rate per strike among the aircraft involved.

Clearly in any long war Soviet naval aviation would have been destroyed pretty quickly with that doctrine with the war staying non-nuclear as long as it did.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Contrapost to this, in the (chronological) sequel to Flight of the Intruder, Stephen Coonts' foil Jake Grafton is tasked with working up a strike package to take out a Soviet surface action group using A6B's, this being well prior to the adoption of the Harpoon ASM. 30% losses on the way in, reduce the enemy forces by perhaps 20-30%, 30% losses on the way out, then rearm and refuel and try to hit them again.

The devil's arithmetic indeed.

Also I have heard tell that the Walker's (John Walker died back in August and I hope he's in Hell) treachery would've cost us incredibly had the balloon gone up.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

It also shows that the Soviets were basically figuring in the loss of a whole regiment of bombers per attack on a carrier no matter what the result - expecting a minimum of a 50 percent loss rate per strike among the aircraft involved.

Clearly in any long war Soviet naval aviation would have been destroyed pretty quickly with that doctrine with the war staying non-nuclear as long as it did.

Clancy (actually probably Larry Bond) got around that by having the first counter attack against the bombers being directed against drones. The F-14s were splashing drones while the real bombers were coming from another direction.

It was a one trick pony and in the end Tomahawks from 7 or 8 Los Angeles subs truly did decimate the bombers right after they landed from a strike.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by kato13

Clancy (actually probably Larry Bond) got around that by having the first counter attack against the bombers being directed against drones. The F-14s were splashing drones while the real bombers were coming from another direction.

It was a one trick pony and in the end Tomahawks from 7 or 8 Los Angeles subs truly did decimate the bombers right after they landed from a strike.

Operation Doolittle, IIRC. A direct strike on Soviet soil, one that in reality would've triggered a nuclear attack on either Norfolk, Holy Loch or possibly Bremen.

[Webstral]

Perhaps. I have read that the Soviets were expected to expect an unspoken agreement with the US that direct attacks on the territory of the other party was out of bounds. It's hard to say how attached to this idea the senior leadership would have been. It's equally hard to say whether or not they would have viewed escalation to nuclear action as a response to conventional attacks on the Kola Peninsula as being advantageous to the Soviet war effort. As everyone here knows, Soviet doctrine held that there were no natural firebreaks between various levels of escalation. Any use of nuclear weapons might lead to an all-out exchange. Twilight: 2000 is based on a very different premise. Where reality might actually have shaken out is a tough call to make.