Personally, I preferred "The Third World War" by Sir John Hackett and it's companion book, "The Third World War: The Untold Story". Hackett was an ex-Army officer in the British Army and his views appeared more realistic IMO.
How accurate is the description of the Naval War in the Atlantic in Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising"?
- Thread starter Alexniko
- Start date
-
- Tags
- naval power soviet navy us navy ww3
The only person with my name I’ve ever seen in print alas dies pretty early in the The Third World War. Other than that, fabulous books.
Both can be borrowed on OpenLibrary, here’s the first, here’s the second.
Both can be borrowed on OpenLibrary, here’s the first, here’s the second.
He was also a senior NATO commander
The Book Team Yankee by Harold Coyle (his first Novel) about a Armour /mech infantry company team was inspired by the opening chapter of, and set during the events of Sir Johns book
You mean beyond the fact that absolutely NO chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were used? Or that the battle of the Atlantic is undistinguishable from the WWII version?
Just as well, otherwise you'd have lost a valuable team player...We never held that against him
When Red Storm Rising and Red October first came out, I thought that they were great books. Now, less so, though still fun yarns. (His politics are quite visible, but they are still stories where the author's viewss are overly visible, as opposed to the later books, which seem to be political tracts disguised as novels.
The NATO early attack on the WP bases and bridges before hostilities officially commenced may not have been so easy to authorize. At that point Spetsnaz cells had been found in W. Germany and neutralized. NATO actually going on the offensive was a great move on NATOs side, but I would have expected some more hesitation/resistance from European governments.
The other point are the targets of that preemptive strike. Clancy had the NATO airforces take out AEW, C3, air bases, bridges. That’s great, but they did that without knowing the Soviet plan of attack. At that point, they only knew of the Spetsnaz in W.Germany.
Put yourself in SACEURs shoes:
Would you... a) hit exactly those targets b) presume the Soviets may also go nuclear and hit nuclear, biological, chemical stockpiles/launchers too c) not attack.
Point c may also appear reasonable, bearing in mind a preemptive NATO strike could provoke an escalation to nuclear warfare from the WP, who would see their plan of conventional warfare being ruined by your strike. That is, provided you knew the Soviets would not go nuclear immediately, because if you thought they would, you should consider b.
And then put yourself into the shoes of the W. German Chancellor.
Hundreds of NATO aircraft taking off from or overflying W. German territory on their way to hit targets in the WP in a preemptive NATO strike - how many nukes do you expect the Soviets to launch at you once these planes cross the inner german border?
RSR would have been a totally different book without that car accident that revealed the Soviet Spetsnaz plan.
So if the Iceland Operation went extremely well for the Soviets, that car accident went extremely unwell for them (and was a totally random factor).
Last edited:
Iceland is a lynchpin of NATO naval efforts in the Atlantic. The detection line stretches to and from it, enabling NATO to detect every ship and submarine passing trough it. If it is not taken the Soviets will be confined to the east of it.
Secondly any conventional non nuclear war that will not escalate into a nuclear war between NATO and Soviets relies on cutting American reinforcements off from Europe and taking Europe swiftly. Atlantic is key to that.
If Soviets are able to take Iceland they will. If the book explains it well how they were able to do so then that makes sense.
Secondly any conventional non nuclear war that will not escalate into a nuclear war between NATO and Soviets relies on cutting American reinforcements off from Europe and taking Europe swiftly. Atlantic is key to that.
If Soviets are able to take Iceland they will. If the book explains it well how they were able to do so then that makes sense.
In retrospect, indeed. It was pointed out on TVTropes that at the time Clancy was writing, there was a dispute between Western analysts as to just what the Soviet submarine fleet was actually for, with some leaning towards the defensive idea and others considering the approach they take in the book, and Clancy just in the end picked the one that either seemed likeliest or made for the better story.
The RAF Nimrod force was downright terrifying for RED subs - it was not uncommon for them to prosecute 3-4 subs per sortie which in real life would have resulted in 50-75% of subs being sunk. NATO would likely have chewed through most WARPAC subs in the first few weeks, they would have had worse survival rates than the Kriegsmarine in late 44/45.
This is essentially correct, as long as Iceland remains in NATOs hands. In RSR, Iceland fell and with it the SOSUS network. This forced NATO to redeploy submarines in order to close the GIUK gap (as far as this was possible). The North Atlantic is big and NATO subs as well as P3s and Nimrods cannot be everywhere. Hunting Soviet subs as they transit the GIUK gap would be great together with the British and French light aircraft carrier groups. However, in RSR the Soviet submarines had the chance to cross the GIUK gap without being subjected to threats of NATO ASW aircraft or surface groups, only NATO subs remained and even these had to repositioned to close the gap. Dozens of Soviets subs had made it by then into the North Atlantic.
Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth
Banned
Agreed. I hardly recall anybody talking about nuclear weapons before or during the war. The closest we get is when a satellite launch is mistaken for a nuke for a few moments...
But then, "Threads: The Novel" wouldn't sell, eh?
Edit: Also, the stuff about "good guys v bad guys" comes off as overly jingoistic, even childishly so, while the romantic subplot on Iceland seems unnecessary.
That said, RSR is still a 'fun' book but it's more entertainment than *serious* AH.
marathag
Banned
Except once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, its all over. Neither side would trade city for city like that.
marathag
Banned
But it was the Evil Empire, after all. There were a bunch of people, just like today's Putin, in charge.
Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth
Banned
I get that- I do believe the West had a genuine moral advantage in the Cold War- but it just comes off as a bit much. Just my opinion though, and I totally understand why Clancy included that phraseology.
you are talking about a book where Soviet naval plans are based on "the testament of Peter the Great.", penal battalions and detachments are standard units of the Soviet army in the 80s, and commissars shoot officers for a politically incorrect choice of an artillery position?
Also the books where Tu-22Ms were used in a long-ranged Air-to-Air role, to intercept REFORGER airlifts over the Atlantic.
That, uh, was somewhat inaccurate. And it's not like anyone thought the Backfire was capable of an interceptor role even among '70s Western military analysts. Hackett honestly seemed to misunderstand technology a lot.