Who would win in a 1980s air war: NATO or the Warsaw Pact?

Who would win in a 1980s air war?

  • NATO

    Votes: 222 92.1%
  • Warsaw Pact

    Votes: 19 7.9%

  • Total voters
    241
True. But when in history has logic taken over when a militaristic regime gets hit with a virulent strain of buck fever?

The Soviet Union in mid-1945.

In WWII, by late 1942, the cupboards in Europe were bare. The Nazis couldn't "loot" any more no matter how hard they tried.

Your about two years too early there. Although the main way the Germans ponied up more loot was by racking up the degree of exploitation on the occupied territories. Starving more people, drafting more slave laborers, cannabalizing factory equipment from industries that were idle for lack of manpower and raw materials... that sort of thing. It had limits, of course, and when those limits hit they hit hard, but they didn't hit as soon as you are suggesting.

That being said, the 1980s USSR isn't the 1940s Nazi Germany. The formers domestic raw materials and energy resource base reduculiously outstrips the latters, even adjusting for the difference in demand. They could keep Western Europes industry and agriculture humming for their war effort if they wind up with the need to expropriate it.

But I honestly don't see it getting there. I come more down on the side of the people who say the French will launch. It was the single most consistent French policy throughout the Cold War... even the socialists didn't repudiate it. Call it 90%+ odds. Even ignoring Perimetr for a moment, a French strike on the Soviets is likely to result in the Soviets replying with a broad-spectrum retaliation against at least NATO theater nuclear assets. Which means nukes falling on the Brits and America's European assets as well as on the French.

And for those saying the French using nukes would be irrational... well, that's kinda the point. An inherent paradox in nuclear deterrence theory is that the willingness to do something that is irrational can be easily incorporated into what is a quite rational doctrine.
 
Last edited:

Nebogipfel

Monthly Donor
I remember one 1980s book, "The Third World War", in which Austria, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Italy surrendered without firing a shot!

If it is Hacketts' WWIII, Yugoslavia is fighting - Slovenia is where NATO and Pact troops have their first encounter. IIRC, there is also a cameo of Berlusconi (the fight is broadcasted by his private TV station).
 
2) Be nice to your brother.;) Family is family.:) Unless you're a Lannister.:happyblush

I did tone that down, actually. When I re-read the original I realized that it was far too snarky. Granted, I always mean the snark to be good-natured, but that simply never comes across right on the interwebs.
 
Other than West Germany I imagine the Soviets will want to physically occupy Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium. This gives them much better access to the open oceans - if the "Finlandize" France (and Norway) this means the Baltic exits are under their control, and they may demand a naval base in France (like they did in Finland). I can't imagine that the USSR would not demand that France give up all nuclear weapons and strategic systems (aircraft, missiles, SSBNs) as part of the deal. Of course not participating in any foreign military alliances not approved by the USSR would be part of the deal for both France and Norway.

Austria is already neutral, I expect they would be pressured to be more aligned with USSR though no need to occupy. Italy and Greece have relatively robust local communist parties which you'd expect to see get stronger, and neither would seek an alliance with the US/UK. The Greece vs Turkey situation would be interesting, with no NATO to keep them from being at each others throats the Aegean could get dicey as well as Cyprus being even worse. The Turks really really won't want to truckle to the Soviets so you might see a US/Turkish alliance, reintroduction of US missiles in Turkey - Greece Soviet aligned Turkey US aligned.

IMHO before the fighting stops the USA may decide to make sure Cuba is eliminated as an outpost for the USSR with Castro et al being booted and Cuba occupied. Even "losing" in Europe the USA can still do this.
 
Don't try to straw-man me, Glenn. I never proposed anything like that. You're trying to win the argument by painting me as some sort of extremist, which I am not. It's juvenile of you, and you'll get my hackles up. The Soviets had some good stuff- I have already praised their antiaircraft systems, and their integrated air defense system was pretty good, too.* But how about we look at what I actually said: that the AA-11 wasn't common or superior enough to make a great difference. Which you pretty much agreed with, to whit:

Agreed that AA-11 probably wasn't populous enough to make a strategic difference. But operationally, well, you yourself say further on that airpower is about concentration, right? AIM-9L was v. good, so the types of kill ratios we might be talking about air to air might be 2:1 WVR (but BVR is F-15's playground in the 1980's).

So why are you doing underhanded stuff like straw-men?

I communicated the impression you were underrating all Soviet systems. You've corrected the impression and established the fact that you do see that in some select cases the Soviets were actually in the lead, even while being behind in most areas.

*cough!* Oh, boy, I need a cite for that one. I'm a professional military officer (one more year to retirement!) so I'm sort of sold on the importance of C3I, Brother. Being able direct aircraft better than your opponent allows the assumption of local superiority- pretty damned helpful even without AMRAAM. Not to mention that AIM-7, while certainly inferior to AMRAAM, isn't nothing. The AIM-7M, which was the 38nm variant that entered service in 1982 (ahem- two years before the AA-11), had a 70% hit rate and 60% kill rate in the Gulf War.

Ever since the one cave man saw a knife in his enemy's hand and picked up a rock to throw outside stabbing range, there is a fundamental principle to warfare; to find a way to hit the other guy when he cannot hit back. Successful C3I, at the basic level, is just a fancy rock. It's purpose is to create a zone of immunity where the enemy can be destroyed but cannot hit back. The safest way is if the enemy doesn't even know you're there. But if he does, then C3I sets the boundries on an envelope for engagement that minimizes his lethality and maximizes ours.

But all that assumes you have weapons that are equal to or a little better than the enemy's. If the enemy has better missiles it gets tougher to successfully exploit C3I because now you have to rely on ambush tactics, where he doesn't even know you're there. This is why they built the F-22.

The AMRAAM and AIM-7M are using C3I to set up the shot in an envelope where the enemy counterattack is minimized. Both have an envelope larger than the effective radius of AA-11. So F-15's with effective C3I using BVR tactics are the way to deal with AA-11. That's obvious. What I said was that in the 1970's the air battles were big swirling dogfights decided by IR missiles and cannons, not BVR tactics. This minimized the usefulness of C3I because BVR fire was ineffective (only 5% of Israeli kills in the 1973 War) and situational awareness collapsed as the dogfight begins.

The 1982 Lebanon War was the first where C3I had a strategic impact. But it might be the exception that casts doubt on the rule - tiny theatre, massive imbalances in force quality, small enemy force structure allowing for a perfect picture situation. Central Europe C3I, circa 1986? Good luck. And, even with this perfect storm for the Israelis, it was the AIM-9L that was doing most of the killing, using C3I to exploit its already massive lethal envelop advantage on the Syrian AA-2 Atoll.

I hope that the Mig-31 is a joke, at least. I mean, yes, it's fast a hell but it's designed to intercept strategic bombers. How does that help the air war in Europe? Fast, yes, but not fast enough to pick off AWACS with impunity.

MIG-31 is lookdown/shootdown. You're a Tornado trying to penetrate between SAM batteries at 200 feet. MIG-31 is a big complication, because if it locks you up, it's raining AA-9's.

Against an F-15, the AA-9 is active radar homing and the AIM-7 is semi-active radar homing. Foxhound was the only jet in the entire Soviet inventory that outmatched the F-15 BVR.

Against thing like AWACS and jammers, don't forget the inverse square law. Yes, the AWACS can sit back 150 miles to prevent an attack, but then it gets the shit jammed out of it. Yes, the jammer can sit back, but a jammer 100 miles back from the SAM loses most of its jamming power and is probably completely useless. A jammer 20 miles from the SAM can be shot down by a MIG-31. Combined arms principles; the '31 makes up for some of the weaknesses in the air defense net, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Ever heard of that missile called AMRAAM ?

While AMRAAM is a wonderful weapon, it literally didn't exist during the period we're discussing here: AMRAAMs didn't enter service 'til the 90s. You can argue it might be rushed a bit into service early, but only barely.
 

SsgtC

Banned
While AMRAAM is a wonderful weapon, it literally didn't exist during the period we're discussing here: AMRAAMs didn't enter service 'til the 90s. You can argue it might be rushed a bit into service early, but only barely.

Actually it did. The AIM-120 had it's first successful shoot down during a test in 1982. In a situation where the US either is involved in a shooting war with the USSR or there is a period of escalating tension, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the AMRAAM could be in service by the mid 80s
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Actually it did. The AIM-120 had it's first successful shoot down during a test in 1982. In a situation where the US either is involved in a shooting war with the USSR or there is a period of escalating tension, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the AMRAAM could be in service by the mid 80s

Possibly. Without having better knowledge of its development, I couldn't say if it was just peacetime lag or actual development problems that would keep it from entering service.
 
Every single night the WARSAW Pact supply routes will receive a visit from F-111 Bombers striking key points . The Best targets of course are bridges over major rivers . Then a few days later if they strike the assembly points for the pontoon bridges etc . GBU-15 lofted from 20 miles away would ruin anyone's day . The use of toss bombing will greatly increase the defence task the Soviets are facing . A railway junction could be engaged without a single overflight by an F-111 tossing either CBU bombs or dumb bombs and still causing significant disruption . Any airfield struck on day one in a big way could then be revisited by toss bombing to maintain the suppression . The Soviet reinforcements would find that every 50 miles closer to the battle front the amount of knocked out bridges , rail lines and roads would increase drastically . A tank may not care about a few shell craters but a assure you the trucks carrying fuel and ammo will suffer . This is why the air battle actually matters . It doesnot matter how many tanks the Soviets send forwards if they become stationary pillboxes after day two and run out of ammo on day three .

In the ground battle, the M1A1 is the king.
 
Actually it did. The AIM-120 had it's first successful shoot down during a test in 1982. In a situation where the US either is involved in a shooting war with the USSR or there is a period of escalating tension, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the AMRAAM could be in service by the mid 80s

AMRAAM just missed the Gulf War in 1991, so if making into combat in the 1980's, it would be in limited numbers.
 
Second, THIS is the comment I was referring to. Not your later attempt at backpedaling. You specifically mention WVR dogfighting with the AA-11 and the only aircraft you mention specifically is the MiG-31.

I listed AA-11, MIG-31, SA-10 and SA-12 as advanced Soviet air systems. You think SA-10 was a good dogfighter, do you?

MIG-31 entered service in 1978 with AA-8 as its IR missile system. AA-11 became operational in 1984 . I don't think the Foxhound even carried AA-11 in the 1980's.

You're right, they are VERY good at running away, very fast. And to claim that the R-60 "knocked out" an F-15 isn't exactly accurate. The way I read that article, the -15 was only damaged and only withdrew for the fight when two other -15s showed up to relieve it.

Could be. Either way, the MIG's survived because they were faster than shit and one of the F-15's wasn't in great shape. Ain't any aircraft in the Iraqi inventory that was shot at and missed more often in the 1991 war than MIG-25.
 
Last edited:
AMRAAM just missed the Gulf War in 1991, so if making into combat in the 1980's, it would be in limited numbers.

I doubt the AMRAAM would enter service even in wartime conditions pre-1990. Just too undercooked for a 'need it now' weapon. Not to mention that the AIM-7M had by then pretty good chances of killing hostiles. Why risk losing the air war over an experimental new weapon?
 
I doubt the AMRAAM would enter service even in wartime conditions pre-1990. Just too undercooked for a 'need it now' weapon. Not to mention that the AIM-7M had by then pretty good chances of killing hostiles. Why risk losing the air war over an experimental new weapon?

Integrating the AIM54 with the F15 would be another alternative. Deploying F14's (with their AIM54's) to Central Europe would be yet another.
 
Integrating the AIM54 with the F15 would be another alternative. Deploying F14's (with their AIM54's) to Central Europe would be yet another.

Again, doubtful. F-14s would be needed with their carrier groups to defend against Soviet long-range air and missile attack and provide air supremacy at sea for NATO fleets. Only if they were evacuated off say a sunk carrier then could their use to supplement land theaters become feasible. And then, given their specialised role of long-range fleet air intercept and defense, they would be hampered muuch like the MiG-25 - long range only, and much weaker in dogfighting. albeit probably still a reasonable combatant.

F-15s weren't designed to handle the AIM-54. In fact I believe only the Tomcat can mate with the Phoenix. (which is somewhat ironic given that the Eagle could probably looking at the stats in Wikipedia handle a full Phoenix load better than the F-14 did...)

In any event, the Phoenix's effectiveness in combat is disputed. I doubt they would bother using it; take too long to re-train pilots for shorter range combat , and the Navy would probably want theirs back at some point, along with their hardware. Even if F-14s were on the front lines, they'd use AIM-7s and AIM-9s. Western sources have not attributed any kills or impacts to the few times it was recorded as being used. (However, Iran is rumoured to have destroyed some fifty aircraft with it before their stockpiles were depleted.
 

SsgtC

Banned

And neither of those were available in the 1980s.

Kontakt-5 didn't become widespread until the mid 90s when the Russians saw how easily American, French and British APFSDS rounds defeated the armor on T-72 tanks.

And early generation ATGMs fired from tank barrels had attrocious hit rates. With it's biggest problem being the time it takes to go from the barrel to the target. Over 17 seconds for maximum range. In that amount of time, a good, well trained tank crew can fire 2 APFSDS rounds and will be firing their third in less than a second. Your tank that fired that ATGM died about 15 seconds ago and the one next to you died 9 seconds ago and the one next to it is about to die. Meanwhile your ATGM lost guidance and slammed into the ground without hitting anything.

Using a tank to launch ATGMs is really only useful in an ambush. Once you're in combat, your best option is conventional main gun rounds. And for the Soviets, who are expecting to be on the attack during the war, I seriously doubt you'll see tanks launching ATGMs.
 
Again, doubtful. F-14s would be needed with their carrier groups to defend against Soviet long-range air and missile attack and provide air supremacy at sea for NATO fleets. Only if they were evacuated off say a sunk carrier then could their use to supplement land theaters become feasible. And then, given their specialised role of long-range fleet air intercept and defense, they would be hampered muuch like the MiG-25 - long range only, and much weaker in dogfighting. albeit probably still a reasonable combatant.

F-15s weren't designed to handle the AIM-54. In fact I believe only the Tomcat can mate with the Phoenix. (which is somewhat ironic given that the Eagle could probably looking at the stats in Wikipedia handle a full Phoenix load better than the F-14 did...)

In any event, the Phoenix's effectiveness in combat is disputed. I doubt they would bother using it; take too long to re-train pilots for shorter range combat , and the Navy would probably want theirs back at some point, along with their hardware. Even if F-14s were on the front lines, they'd use AIM-7s and AIM-9s. Western sources have not attributed any kills or impacts to the few times it was recorded as being used. (However, Iran is rumoured to have destroyed some fifty aircraft with it before their stockpiles were depleted.

Plus of course the fact that the F14 Tomcat was designed as a fleet defense Interceptor, while the F15 was designed as an air superiority fighter, is rather important.
 
Top