ABLE ARCHER 83: Timeline of a Third World War in 1983

[deathscompanion1]

The Soviet Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific fleets have all been destroyed already and Soviet subs have had absolutely no success after day # 1, not sure why you guys are harping on this.

Top Gun is going to be a much better and more interesting movie when it comes out in this timeline.

Top Gun won't come out.

Instead expect either loads of fantasys and dramas ( people need an escape from a world that will be in very rough shape)

And if this is a NATO victory lots of uber patriotic movies followed by more measured ones focussing on war is hell and the effects.

Not sure what a NATO loss would produce.

 

[KillerT]

Is it true that the soviets never actually managed to track one single SSBN? And also true that the RN and USN regularly did get to ping a Soviet one?

 

[MUC]

Convoys would have to be formed yes, but initial small convoys could be done with high priority/higher speed vessels could happen quickly. even with a period of individual sailings the issue remains how much area can a submarine cover. Again subs have to get in to shipping lanes, and this risks detection. In 1980 NATO air ASW can cover major shipping lanes quite well making life unpleasant or short for subs..no "Mid-Atlantic Gap" like WW2. NATO surface forces are going to be forming hunter-killer groups and being quite aggressive.

Troops transports outside of a convoy are a no-go. I don't think the US would be foolish enough to risk such a move. Sure, sending over ammo or tanks in an unescorted ship is one thing, but I do not see for example the USS Inchon transiting alone the Atlantic Ocean full of marines with Soviet subs possible lurking.

Air ASW bases in the US, Canada, Bermuda, Azores, Iceland are really out of range for the USSR (unless they use nuke missiles) and those in UK and Iberian Peninsula are going to be way down on the target list for Soviet aviation. NATO subs are going to be hunting Soviet subs in the Atlantic, but especially north of the GIUK Gap.

Iceland is well in range of Backfires and with Norwegian airspace contested plus the Soviets making a surprise move, a "Red Storm Rising"-type of raid is possible (without the Soviets landing on the island, just a bunch of Backfires blasting the hell out the airbase with cruise missiles).
Further bases in Canada, Bermuda or the Azores could also be attacked by Soviet SSGNs, although they would have to position them early enough before the conflict to do so.

 

[MUC]

The same online sources that mention Able Archer, and the book "The Rise and Fall of the U.S. Navy" make it clear that in the early 1980s, the Soviets were completely unable to defend against carrier battle groups driving right up to the Kola Peninsula and launching strikes.

In late 1981, the U.S., British, Canadian, and Norwegian navies sent a task force of 83 ships centered around the U.S.S. Eisenhower and the HMS Invincible past the GIUK line and within strike range of the Kola peninsula.

The Soviets had spies in the U.S. that informed them of the fleets departure, heading, and intentions. (Walker spy ring in part).

The Soviets launched not one but TWO RORSAT ocean surveillance satellites specifically to track the fleet.

The Soviets sent out dozens of recon aircraft to locate the fleet.

Results:

The Soviets couldn't find it. They knew its general location but never enough to have launched any kind of successful attack.

An American admiral in the aftermath noted with surprise that "they are basically naked up there".

In the Pacific, the Soviets turned out to be blind in 1983 around a number of top security bases (about the time they downed KAL 007) because powerful storms had wrecked havoc with vital radar sites.

All in all, in the early 1980s, the Soviet homeland was far, far, far less protected than people think.

I don't get that.
An 83 ship fleet couldn't be located?
If you put up 3 Tu-95s Bear aircraft over the Norwegian sea, you have enough range with their radars to spot any major vessel in the area (and certainly an 83-vessel-armada).
How couldn't this work?
The Bears would be operating in international airspace, so no problems there either.

 

[Jotun]

Easy: Technical limitations, radar interference due to weather and sea state, the fleet being smart about their route (the USN carrier groups are masters at staying hidden, think strict EMCON, hiding in bad weather fronts)...take your pick.

Another thing is that radar pictures are almost NEVER as they appear in the movies. In fact, a lot of the time they are one messed-up clusterfuck of real returns, ghost returns and general stuff appearing on screen. Things have gotten much better with computer-assisted radar picture enhancement but emphatically not back then.

Oh, and 83 ships do not take up nearly as much room as one might think...and the North Atlantic is not exactly small.

I read about this abject intel failure by the SU too, by the way.

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

I don't get that.
An 83 ship fleet couldn't be located?
If you put up 3 Tu-95s Bear aircraft over the Norwegian sea, you have enough range with their radars to spot any major vessel in the area (and certainly an 83-vessel-armada).
How couldn't this work?
The Bears would be operating in international airspace, so no problems there either.

In regards to the satellites, their orbital paths are well known and fixed once they settle in orbit. You can always avoid detection by something if you know where they are. It can be a simple matter of changing course at the right time then changing back.

The USN also discovered (by accident) that if the ships cut loose with their CIWS (Close In Weapons Systems, 20mm rotary cannons designed to shoot down incoming missiles) that all the projectiles in the air would created a huge radar return that blotted out the ships and made it impossible to get a targeting fix on them.

In regards to the Bears, the task force also sent F-14s to "ambush" the Bears. Including coming in and getting missile locks, making it impossible for them to carry out a search mission.

 

[Timmy811]

Top Gun won't come out.


And if this is a NATO victory lots of uber patriotic movies followed by more measured ones focussing on war is hell and the effects.

How would a version of Top Gun that comes out in a NATO victory timeline not fall under this rubric?

 

[deathscompanion1]

How would a version of Top Gun that comes out in a NATO victory timeline not fall under this rubric?

Because the very tone and idea of the movie would be completely erased.

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

Is it true that the soviets never actually managed to track one single SSBN? And also true that the RN and USN regularly did get to ping a Soviet one?

IIRC, the highly regarded commander of a Soviet Echo class submarine once managed to track one of the early Poseidon carrying SSBNs or 18 hours or so.

In contrast, back in the early 1970s, U.S. SSN commander Whitey Mack tracked a Yankee class SSBN for 47 days!!! From the beginning of its patrol to the end.

By the way, the early 1980s are also when the U.S. Navy found out they could put aircraft carriers in Norwegian fjords and have them almost invulnerable to Soviet anti ship missiles and torpedoes. They did this with the U.S.S. America several times.

 

[Jotun]

IIRC, the highly regarded commander of a Soviet Echo class submarine once managed to track one of the early Poseidon carrying SSBNs or 18 hours or so.

In contrast, back in the early 1970s, U.S. SSN commander Whitey Mack tracked a Yankee class SSBN for 47 days!!! From the beginning of its patrol to the end.

By the way, the early 1980s are also when the U.S. Navy found out they could put aircraft carriers in Norwegian fjords and have them almost invulnerable to Soviet anti ship missiles and torpedoes. They did this with the U.S.S. America several times.

Also called the Lofoten bastion. Fjord entrances easily defended against subs and the mountains help against missile and air attack.

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

Also called the Lofoten bastion. Fjord entrances easily defended against subs and the mountains help against missile and air attack.

IIRC, they found that cruise missiles could not "pitch down" into the waters of a fjord to hit a surface ship if they were coming overland in a terrain following mode.

On the other hand, if they came in high, the missiles radars would bounce off the sides of the fjord and make it impossible for them to get a usable fix on surface ships.

 

[MUC]

Nice tactic hiding a carrier in the fjord, but it only helps in a non-nuclear enviroment.

 

[Timmy811]

Because the very tone and idea of the movie would be completely erased.

It's all very well to say all movies after such a POD are butterflied away, however that's boring, it's more interesting to describe how well known movies made soon after are changed instead.

Saying alternate movie ________ goes on to win an oscar doesn't mean much to us unless you provide us with a screen play, while altering key plot points, background and character motivation of well known movies & characters allows us to identify with them and gives us an insight in the alternate society that made it.

For instance with Top Gun, I'd have Maverick winning that title in the opening of the movie. He's cocky, brash and made it through the Navy's Fighter Weapons School without any repercussions for his recklessness. But what does being "Top Gun" in a world that suddenly explodes into WWIII? Nothing, it's a peace time accolade. Goose gets shot down and killed because of Maverick's glory hound behavior and it is here that he has his crisis of confidence. At the end Maverick goes on to redeem himself in the decisive battle against the Black Sea Fleet.

Same characters, same basic story arc, but a completely different movie.

Other movies that could be altered off the top of my head.

Rambo II is going to have a completely different plot, he'd be released to fight in the War rather to rescue POWs in Vietnam.

Predator would have all the moral ambugity stripped from it and the Predator may be packing heavier weapons, what with a full blown US invasion taking place in Central America.

Die Hard would have McClane fighting Spetnaz commandos on the first day of the war.

 

[kessock]

Nice tactic hiding a carrier in the fjord, but it only helps in a non-nuclear enviroment.

And that starts a whole new game and new tactics. Using a nuke to get one or two carriers does not equal the risks unless it's part of a far larger effort and risk.

 

[Timmy811]

So, John Glenn is still on the ballot of Democratic Primary states isn't he?

Could he theoretically win the nomination and run against Reagan from inside the administration! That hasn't happened since 1800.

ASB I know, but a fun idea I think.

Given how busy they are with the war (if it lasts that long), I suppose it would be like a 19th century election run through surrogates.


EDIT: By the way, Winter of '83 was the coldest on record in the US. All those refugees in tents and prefrab housing are going to have a hell of time.

http://www.farmersalmanac.com/weather/2012/12/24/1983-the-coldest-christmas-ever/

How was the weather in Europe that year? Could it cause the fighting to grind to a halt until spring?

EDIT2: I noticed that the 24th Mech is one of the divisions tasked for the invasion of Iran. That was Schwarzkopf's division.

I'm seeing his war go down like this. He was the ranking army officer in Grenada, so it's likely that he would have been tasked with commanding the Nicaraguan invasion. With those units being transferred to the Mideast along with the 24th, I think Schwarzkopf is a natural candidate for command there give his success in Grenada and Nicaragua under his belt.

I imagine that the CentCom commander is going to be based in Oman or Qatar and he's going to need someone to delegate to on the ground in Iran.

 

[Jotun]

Nice tactic hiding a carrier in the fjord, but it only helps in a non-nuclear enviroment.

Since this TL aims at a non-doomsday ending, I'd say tha carriers would be safe. The Sovs usiung tac nukes in Germany proper AND a large-scale chemical attack that met with no quid pro quo IIRC should be the absolute maximum that NATO (and the US) would accept before whipping out their own nukes...

 

[Timmy811]

Since this TL aims at a non-doomsday ending, I'd say that
carriers would be safe. The Sovs usiung tac nukes in Germany proper
AND a large-scale chemical attack that met with no quid pro quo IIRC should be
the absolute maximum that NATO (and the US) would accept before whipping
out their own nukes...

Unless my memory has become a sieve, no tac nukes have been used by the Soviets and
their chemical attacks have been responded to in kind by NATO.

Map of the situation,

 

[joea64]

Hasn't Norway been attacked? It still shows up as all blue on the map, and if it hasn't been invaded yet, then that takes away one of the main points of the Soviets' compelling Finland to grant passage for their forces.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Hasn't Norway been attacked? It still shows up as all blue on the map, and if it hasn't been invaded yet, then that takes away one of the main points of the Soviets' compelling Finland to grant passage for their forces.

It has but the Soviets are stalled and rushing in reinforcements to prevent a disaster.

 

[orangnumpanglewat]

When China joins in, it will be an utter mess. Any progress in the Koreas?