Fixed fortifications in post ww2 period

[butch4343]

I think soviet PGMs of late 70s to early 90s were geared mostly for aircraft assigned to OCA missions and specifically for airfield strike
For attacking ground targets esp the static ones they relied mostly on unguided but high caliber rockets and dumb bombs

Monk

I was wondering where you take that soviet PGMs were mostly assigned to aircraft carrying out OCA? Do you mean fencers predominantly? I have never seen or heard anything that would suggest that soviet tactics would see PGMs used mainly against airfields. I know that many tactical soviet missiles such as kedge and karens the brochures state that its able to penetrate hardened point targets such as HAS shelters, but to me that doesnt suggest a soviet sway towards using them mostly for OCA.

I would say that you would find them used against HV targets, command bunkers, bridges perhaps things like canal locks just as much as against OCA targets.

I would imagine that you might find a number of a WP OCA might carry PGMs for C3 bunkers on an airfield if known , I would imagine by far the greater number of attackers would carry either heavy calibre rockets or runway attack munitions, either directed at the runways or dropped across the HAS sites in the hope of hitting some shelters in a site. I would imagine this would be followed at the tail end with a flight of aircraft carrying mine dispensers to mess up the post attack recovery on the airfield.

Happy to be corrected though

Regards

 

[Monk78]

Monk

I was wondering where you take that soviet PGMs were mostly assigned to aircraft carrying out OCA? Do you mean fencers predominantly? I have never seen or heard anything that would suggest that soviet tactics would see PGMs used mainly against airfields. I know that many tactical soviet missiles such as kedge and karens the brochures state that its able to penetrate hardened point targets such as HAS shelters, but to me that doesnt suggest a soviet sway towards using them mostly for OCA.

I would say that you would find them used against HV targets, command bunkers, bridges perhaps things like canal locks just as much as against OCA targets.

I would imagine that you might find a number of a WP OCA might carry PGMs for C3 bunkers on an airfield if known , I would imagine by far the greater number of attackers would carry either heavy calibre rockets or runway attack munitions, either directed at the runways or dropped across the HAS sites in the hope of hitting some shelters in a site. I would imagine this would be followed at the tail end with a flight of aircraft carrying mine dispensers to mess up the post attack recovery on the airfield.

Happy to be corrected though

Regards

No I stand corrected , my impression was that PGMs would be used against hardened aircraft shelters as well.Mainly got that from discussions on acig forum and a world airforces article ( albiet outdated from 1993)
Do you think soviet approach of using large caliber rockets would be sufficient against the HAS ?
Always value your input
Thanks

 

[butch4343]

No I stand corrected , my impression was that PGMs would be used against hardened aircraft shelters as well.Mainly got that from discussions on acig forum and a world airforces article ( albiet outdated from 1993)
Do you think soviet approach of using large caliber rockets would be sufficient against the HAS ?
Always value your input
Thanks

Its not my impression Monk but others on this board with more knowledge might be better able to confirm or disprove that mate.

Would large calibre rockets (ie the big S8 that's 240mm or so )or runway penetrators be effective against a HAS, hmmm that's the 64k question, I think they would be if they hit the shelter to varying degrees, how effective your fencer/flogger/fitter pilot would be at delivering them accurately is open to debate, I mean I would guess the runway penetrators would easier to deliver as you only need to run across the site in a straight line and pickle off the weapons, the rockets I would guess would need a bit more aiming and probably a higher delivery profile , perhaps someone on here can advise on standard attack profiles for rockets, can they be delivered from the same heights as retarded bombs for example?

Bare in mind said attack pilots would be running the gauntlet of airfield defences and NATO Caps so they would be almost task saturated. I think it would have been a tall order for your average Fitter/Flogger driver to accurately unguided rockets having flown through NATO air defences. On the other hand it would have been much easier for say the Fencer drivers to follow the steering bug in the HUD through the pre-programmed nav waypoints at high speed and low level, and to press the commit switch for the computer to automatically release the string of concrete piercing bombs at the correct time as the fencer streaks across the has site at 200ft.

No less terrifying Ill add.

 

[Monk78]

Its not my impression Monk but others on this board with more knowledge might be better able to confirm or disprove that mate.

Would large calibre rockets (ie the big S8 that's 240mm or so )or runway penetrators be effective against a HAS, hmmm that's the 64k question, I think they would be if they hit the shelter to varying degrees, how effective your fencer/flogger/fitter pilot would be at delivering them accurately is open to debate, I mean I would guess the runway penetrators would easier to deliver as you only need to run across the site in a straight line and pickle off the weapons, the rockets I would guess would need a bit more aiming and probably a higher delivery profile , perhaps someone on here can advise on standard attack profiles for rockets, can they be delivered from the same heights as retarded bombs for example?

Bare in mind said attack pilots would be running the gauntlet of airfield defences and NATO Caps so they would be almost task saturated. I think it would have been a tall order for your average Fitter/Flogger driver to accurately unguided rockets having flown through NATO air defences. On the other hand it would have been much easier for say the Fencer drivers to follow the steering bug in the HUD through the pre-programmed nav waypoints at high speed and low level, and to press the commit switch for the computer to automatically release the string of concrete piercing bombs at the correct time as the fencer streaks across the has site at 200ft.

No less terrifying Ill add.

You raise some great points
Do you think soviet LGB or kh 28 /as14 could be employed against HAS ? Only problem is unlike paveway or maverick they are large and bulky so only like 2 to 3 per attack aircraft can be carried

 

[butch4343]

Absolutely monk they could be , am just sure they would fit with soviet airforce tactical doctrine.

I would say remember in the cw period those 1 or 2 weapons only translates into one strike aircraft per HAS shelter as one pass haul ass was the rule of the day back then.

Second let's consider the target set, plinking has shelters in gw1 was a resource intensive task , consider a typical nato airfield having between 18 and 24 shelters. That's going to require 24 aircraft at least the problem then becomes deconfliction , smoke from the leaders strikes will start to obscure the other shelters causing following bombs to miss. Plus I believe to get good penetration, of shelters u need the lgb to arrive at as close to 90 degrees as possible, if your using a guided missile that becomes less of an issue due to the motors kinetic energy.

This brings us back to tactics, will an lgb delivering it from low level will likely not give it the energy to punch through the has shelter from a low level delivery, u can toss them onto targets but that means climb up to around 2000 ft around 4 miles from the airfield and that will reveal you to every SAM and gunsystem in the area and any other solider with either a blow pipe or stinger sam. Second to this it requires lots of training to get it right , I believe in the RAF only 16 sqn trained for lgb delivery in Germany and I want to say Lakenheath F111Fs so in the 80s it was a pretty niche capability within NATOs tactical air forces.

That brings me on to weather, if you toss the LGBs then chances are European weather will mean the bomb will disappear into cloud for a portion of its time of flight, not insurmountable but it takes a lot more skill to achieve the required timings , if we said the Soviets adopt a medium level delivery profile weather will likely screw them over as well in that case.

And lastly one thing I've only just considered is this apparently west Germany was quite polluted in terms of air pollution so your laser guided weapons would suffer from reduced ranges from things like smog .

The real game changer would be gps weapons that emerged in the late 1990s , so in a cold war continued scenario consider your F15E or Tornado ect tossing 4 or 2 2000lb BLU109s at a HAS site an 8 ship of tornados could hit 16 shelters, but the then consider the fench fielded the apache missile as well, a weapon based that storm shadow was based on , that carried 10 runway catering munitions with something like 100 mile range, so ur tornado fire x number of apaches at stand off range to crater the runways pinning the fighters in their shelters then a follow up wave of storm shadow strike the shelters. Then 24 hours later after bda confirms x number of shelters were missed a flight of tornados toss jdams at the remainder.

Sorry I digress

Regards

 

[Monk78]

Absolutely monk they could be , am just sure they would fit with soviet airforce tactical doctrine.

I would say remember in the cw period those 1 or 2 weapons only translates into one strike aircraft per HAS shelter as one pass haul ass was the rule of the day back then.

Second let's consider the target set, plinking has shelters in gw1 was a resource intensive task , consider a typical nato airfield having between 18 and 24 shelters. That's going to require 24 aircraft at least the problem then becomes deconfliction , smoke from the leaders strikes will start to obscure the other shelters causing following bombs to miss. Plus I believe to get good penetration, of shelters u need the lgb to arrive at as close to 90 degrees as possible, if your using a guided missile that becomes less of an issue due to the motors kinetic energy.

This brings us back to tactics, will an lgb delivering it from low level will likely not give it the energy to punch through the has shelter from a low level delivery, u can toss them onto targets but that means climb up to around 2000 ft around 4 miles from the airfield and that will reveal you to every SAM and gunsystem in the area and any other solider with either a blow pipe or stinger sam. Second to this it requires lots of training to get it right , I believe in the RAF only 16 sqn trained for lgb delivery in Germany and I want to say Lakenheath F111Fs so in the 80s it was a pretty niche capability within NATOs tactical air forces.

That brings me on to weather, if you toss the LGBs then chances are European weather will mean the bomb will disappear into cloud for a portion of its time of flight, not insurmountable but it takes a lot more skill to achieve the required timings , if we said the Soviets adopt a medium level delivery profile weather will likely screw them over as well in that case.

And lastly one thing I've only just considered is this apparently west Germany was quite polluted in terms of air pollution so your laser guided weapons would suffer from reduced ranges from things like smog .

The real game changer would be gps weapons that emerged in the late 1990s , so in a cold war continued scenario consider your F15E or Tornado ect tossing 4 or 2 2000lb BLU109s at a HAS site an 8 ship of tornados could hit 16 shelters, but the then consider the fench fielded the apache missile as well, a weapon based that storm shadow was based on , that carried 10 runway catering munitions with something like 100 mile range, so ur tornado fire x number of apaches at stand off range to crater the runways pinning the fighters in their shelters then a follow up wave of storm shadow strike the shelters. Then 24 hours later after bda confirms x number of shelters were missed a flight of tornados toss jdams at the remainder.

Sorry I digress

Regards

Please by all means , you are so knowledgeable on these issues and gives us a great chance to learn
Seems likE WP would need atleast 2 strike planes per HAS To have a good chance of destroying them. Probably that is why by the early 80s WP Airforces had such a huge preponderance of strike planes