Operation drop shot war-best possible USSR performance

Status
Not open for further replies.

RousseauX

Donor
You lot are coming off sounding like the social Darwinism of Douhet and all the other idiot air-war enthusiast. The soviet people suffered far more hardship under the Nazi war and endured in spite of an impossible situation.
If the nazis had the same # of nukes the US had by 1957 they would have won Barbarossa no question
 
So bomb Baku. The Soviets can't get much oil then. As industry and their mechanized forces grind to a halt the wallies push them back.

And yes, Europe would be wrecked, nobody as far as I can tell is arguing against that, but your "fantasy" that being hit with hundreds of nuclear bombs is the same as the German invasion during barbarossa is just flat wrong.
 
OK how on earth are they going to locate all these targets with a few U-2 over flights, when thousands of over flights on the Nazi over several years failed to locate most of the Nazi factories and their connected "ring" sites. Soviets were very good at deception and spying so they will probably know about this attack with enough time to disperse the strategic & tactical forces as well as the most important parts of there arsenal.

If you have read any CIA top secret Intel on the soviets during this time it comes off sounding comical ....all Soviet post war weapons are knock off of Nazi wunderwaffen on post war models.

Doesn't generate much confidence.

oil refineries are not notable for their ability to hide, nor of course are cities

The Plan was to attack targets in cities, which with nuclear weapons means attack cities. The location of Omsk for example is well known. The worst part is if the scenario is late 40s/early 50s, then it is more likely that cities are attacked first rather than military targets because if you are going to risk losing a weapon, better to get the most damage from using it.

As of 1956, Strategic Air Command had 2,500 bombers (mostly B47s but a lot of B52s too), and sufficient air refueling aircraft to support them. The Air Defense Force had at its peak had around 6,000 fighters (out of 13,000 total in the Soviet arsenal, the rest being in the Army Air Force and unsuitable as interceptors being short range tactical aircraft)

A full picture of Soviet Air Defenses 1950-60 can be found here

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000269426.pdf

The Soviet Union essentially being a continent in size, that isn't nearly as many aircraft to cover territory as you might think and servicability rates for Soviet aircraft generally ran at about 50% through the entire Cold War

US rates were closer to 70-80%
 
Last edited:
There were only >100 B-52 in 1957 [57 @ end of 56 & 181 @ 1957= 57+181/2= 119 ] .There operational range was 3900nm @ max load. That's NYC to Berlin which means its over the pole .

The B-36 ever numbered more than 300-350 and were replaced B-52 so maybe 100-200 but these were vulnerable to MIG 15 over KOREA and could only get to 13
km altitude; so no joy there.


B-47 faster at 600mp it could not out run MIG-17/19 and had a range of 1800nm with 20,000lb load. But they built > 2000 from 55-65, so it would be the main vehicle of this operation. Its ceiling was only 10km so vulnerable to flak as well as well as MIGs. So again no joy there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-47_Stratojet


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

The large number of AMERICAN NUCS is likely the growth of small tactical nucs...maybe even artillery nucs . AMERICANS don't look like they have the delivery capability to see this mission through.

The original POST is about the plan so why don't you stay with that?
 
Last edited:
There were only >100 B-52 in 1957 [57 @ end of 56 & 181 @ 1957= 57+181/2= 119 ] There operational range was 3900nm @ max load. That's NYC to Berlin which means its over the pole .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

The large number of AMERICAN NUCS is likely the growth of small tactical nucs...maybe even artillery nucs

The original POST is about the plan so why don't you stay with that?

we are... the Plan for Dropshot assumed that World War III would start in 1957. It was written in the late 1940s, presented just after the Korean War started, and was the primary planning document for the buildup and deployment of forces all around the world by the United States.

I have even posted a link in this thread for everyone to take a look at it

You are also forgetting the literally hundreds of air refueling aircraft that SAC had in the 1950s which extend the range substantially for all combat aircraft, not to mention the bases that literally encircled the Soviet Union.
 
Well, in 1949 there were huge gaps in Russian radar coverage you could literally fly a wing of B29's through particularly outside of Eastern Europe. This is evidenced by the frequency the US flew RB45's, RB36's and RB47's all over the Southern and Eastern Soviet Union well into the 1950's often unintercepted. The first targets would have been C3I centres and airbases, cities would have been hit with multiple nukes; given the right circumstances of weather and geography I feel confident a Nuke might well start a Hamburg/Tokyo style firestorm and even if it didn't there would still have been massive fires and disruption. SAC learnt a lot about electronic warfare from the RAF after the war which would also significantly degrade the Soviet ability to intercept incoming strikes.
 
@PSL you think the USSR can defend from thousands of American bombers and escorts flying in From Europe to Alaska and across the poles? Casualties among USAF units will be horrendous yes the USSR will also be destroyed as a nation state, not enough interceptors to much ground to cover and far to many nuclear aircraft. American planes will be flying from Europe the Med from the North Sea and US bases in CONUS, and Alaska AJ3 Savage B47 and B52 bombers and whatever interceptors and escorts that can be towed along with them the US has thousands of nukes the USSR and every major industrial center and city of importance will be destroyed.


here: http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/ABC_Weapons/US_Nuclear_Stockpile.htm
 
OK lets look at soviet defense.

SAM-2 hundreds were deployed around Russia reaching 600 sites by the early 1960s . Each site should at-least be a battery of 6 missiles that demonstrated a 5-6% shoot down rate over Vietnam years later. After several years of ECM suppression battles this rate dropped to ~2% hit rate.

That should account for ~ 28 bombers shot down with many more damage and out of the mission. In WW-II it looked like many more bombers were damager than shot down, but once hit they usually had to be scrapped. I wonder what happened to the jets damage over 'NAM.

SAM-1 [S-25] Reportedly 56 sites were deployed around Moscow with each site able to launch 2 missiles to each of 10 targets from 1-18km with 30m burst radius and nucs in the 1960s.

So going on SAM 2 in NAM , that's another 63 bombers shot down and many more damaged....if all sites are operational by time DROPSHOT is started.


SAM-3 deployed in 1961 around MOSCOW after SAM-1 deployment did quite well over the years claim 25-35 aircraft hit although many were damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-25_Berkut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora



That's 60-90 bombers shot down in the first strike by SAM alone...not looking so good.
 
OK lets look at soviet defense.

SAM-2 hundreds were deployed around Russia reaching 600 sites by the early 1960s . Each site should at-least be a battery of 6 missiles that demonstrated a 5-6% shoot down rate over Vietnam years later. After several years of ECM suppression battles this rate dropped to ~2% hit rate.

That should account for ~ 28 bombers shot down with many more damage and out of the mission. In WW-II it looked like many more bombers were damager than shot down, but once hit they usually had to be scrapped. I wonder what happened to the jets damage over 'NAM.

SAM-1 [S-25] Reportedly 56 sites were deployed around Moscow with each site able to launch 2 missiles to each of 10 targets from 1-18km with 30m burst radius and nucs in the 1960s.

So going on SAM 2 in NAM , that's another 63 bombers shot down and many more damaged....if all sites are operational by time DROPSHOT is started.


SAM-3 deployed in 1961 around MOSCOW after SAM-1 deployment did quite well over the years claim 25-35 aircraft hit although many were damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-25_Berkut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora



That's 60-90 bombers shot down in the first strike by SAM alone...not looking so good.
For the soviets or American bombers?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15

Based on Soviet archival data, 335 Soviet MiG-15s are known to have been admitted as lost by the Soviets over Korea.[51] Chinese claims of their losses amount to 224 MiG-15s over Korea.[52] North Korean losses are not known, but according to North Korean defectors their air force lost around 100 MiG-15s during the war.[53] Thus a total of 659 MiG-15s are admitted as being lost, all but a handful to F-86 Sabres, while USAF claims of their losses amount to 78 F-86 Sabres,[54] for a probable kill ratio of around 6:1 in favor of the F-86 Sabre. Overall UN losses to MiG-15s are credited as 78 F-86 Sabres and 75 aircraft of other types
[54]

So in air to air combat 659 MIG-15 were lost to 153 UN fighter's or about 4 : 1

But this may not help us since its bomber interceptions we need to know about.

In the same article it reports


A total of 44 MiG-15s achieved victories[clarification needed] in that mission on 12 April 1951 when they intercepted a large formation of 48 B-29 Superfortresses, 18 F-86 Sabres, 54 F-84 Thunderjets and 24 F-80 Shooting Stars heading towards the bridge linking North Korea and Red China over the Yalu river in Uiju. When the ensuing battle was finished, the experienced Soviet fliers had shot down or damaged beyond repair 10 B-29As, one F-86A and three F-80Cs for the loss of only one MiG.[13]

U.S. strategic bombers returned the week of 22–27 October to neutralize the North Korean aerodromes of Namsi, Taechon and Saamchan, taking further losses to the MiG-15. On 23 October 1951, 56 MiG-15bis intercepted nine Superfortresses escorted by 34 F-86s and 55 F-84Es. In spite of their numerical inferiority, the Soviet airmen shot down or damaged beyond repair eight B-29As and two F-84Es, losing only one MiG in return and leading Americans to call that day "Black Tuesday".[24]

So that's 44 MIGS attacking 48 bombers & 96 escort jets , shot down 10 bombers & 4 fighters for loss of one jet. later 56 MIGS shot down 2 of 89 jets & 8 of 9 B-29 bombers for the loss of another MIG.

In total we have 100 MIGS attacking 57 bombers with 182 escorting jets. The MIGS shot down 18 bombers & 6 escorting jets for the loss of 2 MIGS.

The figures given by the Soviet sources indicate that the MiG-15s of the 64th IAK (the fighter corps that included all the divisions that rotated through the conflict) made 60,450 daylight combat sorties and 2,779 night ones and engaged the enemy in 1,683 daylight aerial battles and 107 at night, claiming to have shot down 1,097 UN aircraft over Korea, including 647 F-86s, 185 F-84s, 118 F-80s, 28 F-51s, 11 F-94s, 65 B-29s, 26 Gloster Meteors and 17 aircraft of different types

So that's 63229 sortie = 1790 battles only one interception for every 35 MIG sortie.

This is not looking good for DROPSHOT if 100 MIGS can shoot down 18 bombers and 6 escorting jets for the loss of only 2 MIGS


  • 16 December 1950: An RB-29 of USAF was downed over Primore (Sea of Japan) by two MiG-15 pilots, Captain Stepan A. Bajaev and 1st Lieutenant N. Kotov.
  • 19 November 1951: MiG-15bis pilot 1st Lieutenant A. A. Kalugin forced a USAF C-47 that had penetrated Hungarian airspace to land at the airbase at Pápa.
  • 13 June 1952: Two naval MiG-15s, flown by Captain Oleg Piotrovich Fedotov and 1st Lieutenant Ivan Petrovich Proskurin, shot down an RB-29A near Valentin Bay, over the Sea of Japan. All 12 crew members perished (their bodies were not recovered).
  • 13 June 1952, Catalina affair: A Soviet MiG-15 flown by Captain Osinskiy shot down a Douglas DC-3 reconnaissance plane of the Swedish Air Force piloted by Alvar Almeberg near Ventspils over the Baltic Sea. Its three crew members perished. One of the two Swedish military Catalina flying boats that conducted subsequent search and rescue for the downed DC-3 was also shot down by a MiG-15, though with no loss of life.
  • 7 August 1952: Two MiG-15 pilots, 1st Lieutenants Zeryakov and Lesnov, shot down a USAF RB-29 over the Kurile islands. The entire crew of nine died (the remains of one, Captain John R. Durnham, were returned to the United States in 1993).
  • 18 November 1952: Four MiG-15bis engaged four F9F-2 Panther off the aircraft carrier USS Princeton (CV-37) near Vladivostok. One MiG-15 pilot, Captain Dmitriy Belyakov, managed to seriously damage Lieutenant Junior Grade David M. Rowlands's F9F-2, but seconds later he and 1st Lieutenant Vandalov were downed by Elmer Royce Williams and John Davidson Middleton. Neither Soviet pilot was found.
  • 29 July 1953: Two MiG-15bis intercepted an RB-50G near Gamov, in the Sea of Japan, and instructed it to land at their home base. The RB-50 gunners opened fire and hit the MiG of 1st Lieutenant Aleksandr D. Rybakov. Rybakov and his wingman 1st Lieutenant Yuriy M. Yablonskiy then shot down the RB-50. One of the crew members (John E. Roche) was rescued alive, and three corpses were recovered. The remaining 13 crew members became missing-in-action.
  • 17 April 1955: MiG-15 pilots Korotkov and Sazhin shot down an RB-47E north of the Kamchatka peninsula. All three crew members perished.
  • 27 June 1955: El Al Flight 402 was shot down by two Bulgarian MiG-15 aircraft after penetrating Bulgarian airspace. All 58 passengers and crew perished in the attack.[62

So overall during the Korean war & COLD WAR- 28 allied bombers were shot down by 116 MIGS with many many allied jet escorts. Thats roughly 4 sortie for every enemy bomber shot down...that's better than ME-262 VS WALLIE bombers in WW-II
 
Given the historically pooor accuracy of bombers and reconnaissance , the real question should be will it hit the center of the CEP...NO, so it may well land in the outer ring [more than 1 CEP AWAY] will the blast radius be sufficient still to even reach the target?

...

If the yanks are dumb enough to waste their precious few nukes on the hundreds and hundreds of regiments, they will definitely lose Europe and world. .....

This provides the misleading impression that the nukes used against enemy armored formations would be delivered only by aircraft. On the contrary, you have been told very clearly that the USA at this time have long-range artillery capable of delivering 15-Kiloton munitions, with a warhead that was also planned to be used as a nuclear land mine. Needless to say the US artillery at this time was the fastest-reacting and most accurate in the world.

As to the "precious few nukes", why don't you look the figure up before making yourself ridiculous? It's about 2,500 warheads - against some 200 in the SU stockpile.


ooh right that's what they seem to do these days...:rolleyes:

Look, nobody cares about your present-day politics. Go to a political forum if you wish to make such comments.
 
The large number of AMERICAN NUCS is likely the growth of small tactical nucs...maybe even artillery nucs

"Probably"? My dear boy, these data are mostly declassified by now. Most people here post after having informed themselves about the facts. You go for "probably". Can you see how that makes you look?

That said, it's you who boasted of "hundreds and hundreds" of enemy regiments. So an increase in tactical nukes wouldn't be all that bad, when it comes to obliterating those regiments on day one, right?

The original POST is about the plan so why don't you stay with that?

Because the plan had been written years before the date in which it might have been implemented. Things changed over those years, something you would know if you had taken the trouble to read it.

Additionally, the plan focused on the strategic bombing that would decapitate the Soviet decision making structures, industrial capabilities, and manpower centers. For that, what was needed was a strategic bombing offensive by long-range bombers, and a limited number of high-yield nukes (the high-yield makes your whining about inaccuracy totally moot; when a city gets hit by a 1-Megaton warhead, a mistake of some 500-1000 meters is inconsequential).
But then somebody raised the issue of a Soviet land offensive, imagining that that would automatically be a success. The NATO/OTAN reply to that in the framework of a war that had already gone nuclear was - guess it - nuclear. So the smaller, tactical warheads do count. They will make West and East Germany, as well as Poland and other areas in Central/Eastern Europe unhealthy places, yes, though never as much as downtown Moscow.
 
Last edited:
That's 60-90 bombers shot down in the first strike by SAM alone...not looking so good.
This is not looking good for DROPSHOT if 100 MIGS can shoot down 18 bombers and 6 escorting jets for the loss of only 2 MIGS
The problem is that a lot of the shoot downs will be on bombers after they drop, with WWII conventional bombs that's fine and would be unsupportable but not with nuclear bombers.

Even if the USAF suffers loses like Schweinfurt they will still have far to many bombers getting thought and destroying the main Soviet city's would they not?
 

Sigh.

The S-25 was solely used to defend Moscow. That would admittedly be the hardest target. In any case, the S-25 systems around Moscow had been deployed in 1956, one year before the year we're looking at, and there's no telling how effective they would be. Their testing had been against parachute targets or towed drones.

The S-75 had barely begun deployment in 1957.

The S-125 is the SA-3 Goa, deployed starting in 1961 and anyway it would hardly be able to engage very high altitude targets.

If the Soviets can use in 1957 stuff deployed in the early 1960s, then the USA can use the first ICBMs, which will totally moot air defenses and deliver 1-megaton warheads straight into Moscow.
Also the Davy Crocketts, a mad scientist's nuke if there ever was one. They'll make mincemeat of those armored regiments.
 
So that's 63229 sortie = 1790 battles only one interception for every 35 MIG sortie.

This is not looking good for DROPSHOT if 100 MIGS can shoot down 18 bombers and 6 escorting jets for the loss of only 2 MIGS

No its looking really bad for the Soviets if 100 Interceptors can only down a 18 bombers SAC has somewhere in the reign of 2000 or so craft the navy more the brits have their V Bombers the Soviets had what 6000 interceptors of which 50% are normally operational they can shot down 540 bombers which won't be nearly enough considering the size of the SAC force assuming a 70 to 80% operational rate of the SAC force
 
Here is a link to a declassified USAF training film from 1958:


This training film shows the SAC (Strategic Air Command) response to a Soviet first strike attack on the United States. The basic plan was a total response--bomb them until they are incapable of launching any attacks whatsoever. Bear in mind this is SAC's response to an attack, and that no other arm of the military is shown. If this is the response to an attack, what would an American first strike look like?

A Dropshot scenario would leave precious little of the Soviet Union or the Communist bloc left, and what was left would be in no position to launch or maintain a war.
 
Best possible Soviet performance would involve it intercepting enough US bombers to avoid any fatal losses to it's military-industrial base and logistical network. That would allow it to overrun Western Europe... only to then lose in the long run as the US builds enough ICBMs to rain nuclear destruction down on the Soviets anyways.
 
Best possible Soviet performance would involve it intercepting enough US bombers to avoid any fatal losses to it's military-industrial base and logistical network. That would allow it to overrun Western Europe... only to then lose in the long run as the US builds enough ICBMs to rain nuclear destruction down on the Soviets anyways.

I don't think they'd manage to overrun Europe. N-hardened battlefield stuff came in the 1960s and even later. Tactical nukes in yields from 15 to 61 (!!!) Kilotons could be used to plug the Fulda Gap, and any other gap, as well as the concentration and staging areas in the immediate rear areas, being delivered by tactical aircraft, short-ranged missiles both guided and unguided, and 280mm artillery. There's no coming through such a curtain.
 
We are looking at the 1955-1960 time frame. NOT the late 1940s or the late 1960s. At this point in time the USAF would be using B-47 and B-52 for strategic nuclear weapons delivery, not B-29s (where the Korean War data comes from) or B-36s. This means the PVO fighters will need to be vectored to the fairly accurately as the MiG-17 and MiG-19 had a speed advantage over the jet bombers but not that great and a high speed pursuit with a race to altitude would burn a lot of fuel. Furthermore both of these were only gun armed which meant they had to close significantly to attack. The MiG-21 which was faster and had missiles did not begin to be in operational service until 1959. while I don't know what the plan was in this detail, USAF fighters from forward bases could escort the bombers for at least a portion of their flight depending upon where the flight paths were. Also the navy had a total of 40 deployable Regulus nuclear armed missiles on subs, not all deployed at once although for preemptive attack most could be at sea. These (with 500nm range) would probably be used against coastal targets and would be useful in disrupting PVO efforts.

Assuming you have a preemptive attack, this means it is unlikely the Red Army could immediately surge over the border. Even given a period of some tension, to go to a full on offensive posture would take time for the Soviets and while their might be some advances, Berlin taken, etc, the reality was with the links to the USSR cut off the Red Army would be in a bad way before NATO hit it. Also in the 1955-1960 time frame the countries of the WP were by no means as "ready" to assist the USSR militarily later on, and they were still ripe for rebellion. Look at the East German situation in the 1950s and the Hungarian revolt in 1956. With the USSR being pummeled some if not all of the WP countries will see a good deal of anti-Soviet activity of all sorts.

Things will be messier in a USSR strikes first scenario but in a US preemptive strike, where the period of tension has not been long enough/severe enough for the USSR to get its strike forces up to snuff including forward basing of bombers, the damage to CONUS from Soviet nuclear forces will be ugly (even one city hit is ugly) but very survivable. In 1957 roughly 200+ Soviet nukes. Unclear how many of those were for strategic use but assuming that half of them were to be headed to the USA IMHO if 10-20 hit the USA that would be a lot. Probably less than 10, and where is unclear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top