Warsaw Pact in SWAT...

Status
Not open for further replies.

MacCaulay

Banned
...I'm watching 9 Rota, and it reminded me of just how much Afghanistan looked and felt like I imagine the arid portions of Namibia to be from pictures and interviews I've read of South African soldiers.

So I just figured I'd throw this out there to let you guys mull it over: suppose in 1987 after the first deployment of the Olifant tank by the South Africans, Cuban forces are defeated decisively in the field (like...a regimental-sized unit is eviscerated) and SWAPO units are stopped as well.

So the Soviet Union decides to send a heavy multinational force consisting of two of it's own tank battalions and three West German and Romanian motorized infantry battalions. The tanks land in Luanda, while the West Germans and Romanians land hundreds of miles closer to the border at the airstrip at Benguela.

I'll be honest: I'm just spitballing here.

So...how do you folks figure the South African Army could handle itself against a fairly large, well-trained Warsaw Pact ground force in the late 1980s?
 
...I'm watching 9 Rota, and it reminded me of just how much Afghanistan looked and felt like I imagine the arid portions of Namibia to be from pictures and interviews I've read of South African soldiers.

So I just figured I'd throw this out there to let you guys mull it over: suppose in 1987 after the first deployment of the Olifant tank by the South Africans, Cuban forces are defeated decisively in the field (like...a regimental-sized unit is eviscerated) and SWAPO units are stopped as well.

So the Soviet Union decides to send a heavy multinational force consisting of two of it's own tank battalions and three West German and Romanian motorized infantry battalions. The tanks land in Luanda, while the West Germans and Romanians land hundreds of miles closer to the border at the airstrip at Benguela.

I'll be honest: I'm just spitballing here.

So...how do you folks figure the South African Army could handle itself against a fairly large, well-trained Warsaw Pact ground force in the late 1980s?

They'd buy some nukes from Israel. Then they'd use them.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
They'd buy some nukes from Israel. Then they'd use them.

They already had developed nuclear weapons at Pelindaba in conjunction with Israel. They were online in either 1987 or 1988, and were deliverable by gravity bomb from Mirages: what was interesting about that was that it meant there was hardly any development time for the actual delivery system.

As soon as they had the plutonium (I think it was plutonium) ready, they could deliver weapons.
 
They'd buy some nukes from Israel. Then they'd use them.

Wouldn't need to buy 'em. South Africa had A-bombs by 1981-82, and could deliver 'em using their Mirage F1AZ fighters.

What they did would depend on the goals of the Russians. If they were just gonna kick the South Africans and shove 'em out of Angola, the South Africans would get the hell out and then fortify like crazy on the Namibia-Angola border. if they went into Namibia or talked about driving all the (very long) way to Cape Town or Pretoria, then the South Africans probably would consider the nuclear option.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Wouldn't need to buy 'em. South Africa had A-bombs by 1981-82, and could deliver 'em using their Mirage F1AZ fighters.

I thought it was later than that? I'll try and cite my numbers, but I might not be able to. If I can't, I guess I'll defer to you or we can at least meet in the middle and agree they'd be in the arsenal.

What they did would depend on the goals of the Russians. If they were just gonna kick the South Africans and shove 'em out of Angola, the South Africans would get the hell out and then fortify like crazy on the Namibia-Angola border. if they went into Namibia or talked about driving all the (very long) way to Cape Town or Pretoria, then the South Africans probably would consider the nuclear option.

We'll say that the Soviet Battle Group comes in with the express aim to kick the South Africans (1st) out of Angola and (2nd) to ensure an independent government in South West Africa Territory.


Though like I've said before, the South Africans are the only military other than the Israelis that I could honestly see using nuclear weapons. Normally, they're thought of as strategic; the kind of things that are only used to settle things between whole countries but will undoubtedly bring ruin down on peoples' heads. South Africa is in a rather unique position in that it's nuclear arsenal could in many ways serve a tactical purpose for the defense of it's borders.
Also, one probably couldn't escape the fact that both South Africa and Israel (especially South Africa in the 1970s and 80s and Israel in 50s and 60s) have these very real feelings of isolation and defensiveness that are far from in their heads.

But for now, let's suppose that Pretoria decides to try a conventional solution in the hope that one can be reached. You're the head of the South African Air Force or Army: what can you offer?
 

NothingNow

Banned
But for now, let's suppose that Pretoria decides to try a conventional solution in the hope that one can be reached. You're the head of the South African Air Force or Army: what can you offer?
Bomb and Shell the Shit out of them, Night after night until they break or are weak enough that the Army can deal with them.
 
We'll say that the Soviet Battle Group comes in with the express aim to kick the South Africans (1st) out of Angola and (2nd) to ensure an independent government in South West Africa Territory.

That then is a problem. For both sides. The Soviets will have the task of garrisoning a massive, almost roadless hinterland that also has a bunch of choke points along the way SWA's capital, Windhoek, is one of these - its in the middle of the Auas Mountains, and if the South Africans are determined, they'd drop a brigade in Windhoek and hold the lines north from South Africa. Defenders have big advantages, and if the South Africans are prepared well, two brigades in Windhoek could stop a Soviet Division. The South Africans by 1987 had the Ingwe anti-tank missile, and would by early 1989 probably also have the Rooivalk attack helicopter, if they are rushing to get it to the line. Olifants aren't gonna stop T-80s, though Ratels on BTRs would be a fair fight and South African Rooikat or Eland armored cars will tear up BTRs like beer cans. The G-5 or G-6 artillery guns are bad news for the Soviets, too. The South Africans would probably not want to hit hard with nukes over Namibia, especially if they'll kill thousands of Russians if they succeed. That's just asking to have Pretoria or Johannesburg disappear in a mushroom cloud. But if the Russians went to run on Pretoria, the Apartheid state would probably say fuck it and use their A-bombs.

The Soviets will have a supply problem, even if they can land ships at Benguela, it's still a very long road to the front. Landing at Luanda makes that even worse. If they want to overwhelm the South Africans, they'd need to take Walvis Bay and Swakopmund to supplies going. The South Africans will know that, too, so you can expect a lot of South African firepower at Walvis Bay. The South African Navy's fast attack boats would be a problem for the Soviets here, too - they can't operate far from shore, but if they Soviet freighters get cut up by South African fast-attacks, they are just as screwed.

Also, one probably couldn't escape the fact that both South Africa and Israel (especially South Africa in the 1970s and 80s and Israel in 50s and 60s) have these very real feelings of isolation and defensiveness that are far from in their heads.

That's more true than I think you realize, MacCaulay. That was the reason they fought SWAPO for so long, they felt that giving up there would give the ANC a convenient place to launch attacks from. A National Geographic article from 1982 quoted a SADF soldier saying exactly that - "We're fighting for OUR homeland." South Africa supported Rhodesia for a while on that same premise, until Vorster got a comment that black Africa would tolerate apartheid if they could bring down Rhodesia. (And I imagine had Vorster not died, he'd have been very, very pissed at Mugabe for lying through his teeth on that.) It's also why they supported RENAMO for so long, too. That isolation was rather real, too - EVERYONE hated them by 1987, one of the very few things Washington and Moscow could agree on.

But for now, let's suppose that Pretoria decides to try a conventional solution in the hope that one can be reached. You're the head of the South African Air Force or Army: what can you offer?

Get out of Angola, for starters. You can't stop a Red Army tank brigade with Olifants, and there is way too much open ground in Angola, as well as local opposition. T-72s would be too much for the Olifants, let alone the T-80s the Red Army was using by 1987. Best hope is pull back into Namibia, probably also ditching Ovamboland and the border areas - thus removing 2/3s of Namibia's black population from the equation as well, because they are concentrated in the North. Focus on keeping Windhoek, Walvis Bay and the supply lines. Fortified in the Auas Mountains around Windhoek, the Soviets will be facing a tough, determined foe on ground of his choosing, which he will almost certainly have garrisoned. Pretoria would demand that the UNITA attack anything Russian there, and probably provide them with plenty of firepower to do so. A prepared defender can stop three times as many units as he has, which means a South African brigade there can stop a Red Army Division, assuming the South Africans find a way to stop T-80s. Ratels with Ingwes, and anti-tank missiles on ground-attack aircraft or even rigged to their Alouette III helicopters, might be able to do that.

If the South Africans have some time to deal with this, I can see them clandestinely buying a bunch of Merkava Mk II tanks from the Israelis and getting them run out to South Africa. That would be tough to do and expensive, but it would probably even the odds, though I'm not sure a 105mm shot from a Merkava would stop a T-80. I'm also seeing those South African Merkavas getting the laser rangefinder and other gear from the Rooikat, too.

As for the Air Force, that depends on what the Soviets bring with them. If they have MiG-29s, the South Africans have a major, major problem - the Cheetah was even with the Fulcrum on avionics technology but way behind it in most other ways, and its the best the South Africans have got. Their Canberra bombers and Buccaneer attack aircraft could be a wild card, though Soviet SAMs are very good and this would probably result in substantial losses. Against MiG-23s, the odds are more even, as the Flogger is a shitty dogfighter and the Mirage F1 is a rather good one, though the Flogger has radar-guided missiles to compensate for that.
 

Cook

Banned
Ok, I can’t help it, I have to ask.

What is the cabin air-conditioning like in a T-80? It was built for the European climate wasn’t it; things get a tad hotter in Angola and Namibia.
 
Ok, I can’t help it, I have to ask.

What is the cabin air-conditioning like in a T-80? It was built for the European climate wasn’t it; things get a tad hotter in Angola and Namibia.

That's actually a good question. In the heat of Namibia, the climate control being inadequate in the tank is a recipe for heat stroke, especially if they fight in the summer. Windhoek's temps ranged between 20 and 30 Celsius for daytime highs on average.
 

Cook

Banned
Would Thatcher be willing to send a British/Commonwealth task force to aid SA given the longstanding historical ties to SA and also Thatcher's opposition to SA sanctions? After all, SA fought for King and Empire in both world wars.
 
1987... Soviets with Romanians (the least reliable WP member) and West Germans (a NATO member)...

Um... ASB to the max?

Sorry, I can't quite get past this part.
 
South Africa, a nation with less than 10 nukes, isn't going to take on the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world. It would be suicide, not MAD even on a tactical level.

Conventionally, I doubt Romania would take part. The Red Army and NVA would still massacre the South Africans however.
 
1987... Soviets with Romanians (the least reliable WP member) and West Germans (a NATO member)...

Um... ASB to the max?

Sorry, I can't quite get past this part.

Not sure why the Soviets would bring the Romanians along, but I'm pretty sure that Mac meant East, not West, Germany when he was talking about the Warsaw Pact force.
 
Not sure why the Soviets would bring the Romanians along, but I'm pretty sure that Mac meant East, not West, Germany when he was talking about the Warsaw Pact force.

Sure, but he said it twice. And I can't really see why they'd send their most important ally on the European front either. Bulgaria, perhaps - at least as reliable, and committed to the less-important SW front.
 
But for now, let's suppose that Pretoria decides to try a conventional solution in the hope that one can be reached. You're the head of the South African Air Force or Army: what can you offer?

I think that depends alot on what sort of anti-air assets your typical Warsaw Pact Armored formation would have at the time. If the SAAF still has the Canberra, and the WP forces can't hit the bomber's at alititude, then I'd say the solution is to fall back a few kilometers, hit the WP force's supply dumps witht eh Canberra's, and leave behind some light recon elements to call in the bombers on any targets of opprotunity as well. Then just send the army back in a few days later to pick up the pieces.
 
I think that depends alot on what sort of anti-air assets your typical Warsaw Pact Armored formation would have at the time. If the SAAF still has the Canberra, and the WP forces can't hit the bomber's at alititude, then I'd say the solution is to fall back a few kilometers, hit the WP force's supply dumps witht eh Canberra's, and leave behind some light recon elements to call in the bombers on any targets of opprotunity as well. Then just send the army back in a few days later to pick up the pieces.

And here we find another problem with the OP; the WP worked in terms of regiments; battalions weren't employed independently.

A WP tank or MR regiment in 1987 would have an organic ADA battery with 4 SP gun tracks (ZSU-23/4 typical), and 4 SP SAM tracks (SA-9 typical). A battery from the parent division's SAM regiment would likely be attached for any independent operations, with four SA-6 or SA-8 tracks. There'd be a radar track with each battery.

There'd also be shoulder-fired SAMs with the infantry, of course.

Edit to add: IIRC the SA-6 and SA-8 both had ceilings of about 12km and radius of 20km+. Take that with a largish grain of salt.
 
Last edited:

MacCaulay

Banned
Ok, I can’t help it, I have to ask.

What is the cabin air-conditioning like in a T-80? It was built for the European climate wasn’t it; things get a tad hotter in Angola and Namibia.

That brought back the problems the CF was having with the Leopard C1s in Afghanistan, actually. Those were some sucky sucky days having to sit in those ovens.


I brain farted. East German.



Gridley: Another brainfart on my part. You'd think after writing Soviet Invasion of Iran, 1981 I'd have been more anal. It was late, I was honestly just spitballing. :D

I'll rephrase: they deploy a division-esque sized force with one brigade of Soviet heavy armour and two brigades of West German and Romanian mechanized infantry. (more troops, yes, but what the hell. You only live once.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top