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
In an air war over Europe, using a small number of F-14s to hit fighters with AIM-54s is a waste of an asset. The aircraft/missile system was designed to take out larger aircraft at a distance. Therefore, using the F-14 against Soviet AWACS aircraft or tankers or transports is the most appropriate use of this. It could also be part of a system to defend against long range MiG-23 attacks on NATO AWACS as the AIM-54 outranges the Soviet missiles, and as noted the MiG-23 is not good at dodging. As far as F-14 against Soviet fighters, between sparrow and sidewinder missiles, aircraft capabilities, and the advantage of the radar system and the 2 man crew if it gets in a situation of fighter vs fighter it has a decent shot. Except by the F-14 pilots being stupid or the Soviets getting very lucky, a close in dogfight between an F-14 and Soviet fighters is unlikely.

MIG-23 had one move where it was very. good - that was just after the 'merge' to double back for the AA-8 shot. Otherwise, the F-16/15 had it all over the Flogger in WVR combat, and the '15 was considerably superior BVR.

In terms of F-14 "wasting assets" in Europe, that depends on what the F-14's are doing elsewhere that's more important. The SLOC to Europe need to be maintained, and in the Pacific US carriers will need to keep SLOC to Japan and Korea open, as well as consider air raids into Russian Siberia, (where the F-14's will be going up against '31's and 27's, among older jets). Assuming these tasks fully occupy the Tomcat fleet then Europe might not beckon. But if they do not, I don't see where the Tomcats go if not Europe.
 
With some exceptions (perhaps Gps being one of them, but I don't believe Gps was widely used in the 1980's) I'll bet on NATO winning the initial stages of an ECM / ECCM battle invoking modern electronics with the Soviets in a ww3 Scenario. The existence of "war reserve" modes for US electronic systems is well established in my view (although I don't have any specific insights re JSTARS.)

NATO has the electronic advantage in most cases, so they have the upper hand in ECM/ECCM. That being said, there's no such thing as Freedom Photons - our radars obeyed the exact same laws of physics as Russian radars. Meaning, if you jam the living shit out of the relevant frequencies and the operator has no others in better condition to hop to, then the radar can't do it's job properly and C3I collapses. The easiest way to get the jamming power over the radar power is to force the radar back to take advantage of inverse square. An AWACS at 50 miles has 10 times the signal power as the same plane at 150 miles.

I will say that if NATO was attacking and the Soviets were defending that I suspect the Soviet deception measures would have been much more effective.

I suspect that a Soviet offensive would not be very effective because NATO defensive systems (ATGM's and superior tanks) would prove too hard to overcome. But I think you're right that if the WP reverts to the defensive, NATO gets nowhere. The campaign might have stalemated, like the 1973 War was looking like a stalemate until the Israelis surrounded the Egyptian army at Suez.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
Between NATO airpower and NATO tank power, I think the NATO tanks do most of the stopping of a Soviet offensive. But, Tom Clancy Red Storm Rising wanking about Soviet political collapse aside, I also don`t think NATO had much capacity for counterattack or to bring a war to a close in a short timeframe.

Then US Naval studies in the late 1970's and early 1980's agreed. Assuming the NATO armies held, it was as the greater production potential of the NATO forces came to bear, we would see a slow push back of the Soviets. I don't have the details, but once we get to the 6 month time frame where NATO rules the sea, we evidently outproduce the Soviets on things like tanks and planes. No idea how the US Navy drew this conclusion.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I don't doubt these measures would have considerable effect.

The thing is that vehicles need to move forwards to sustain an offensive and I seem to recall NATO had sensors designed to detect movement along with the ability to fuse the data from those sensors with other data. Deception measures for stationary targets such as bridges are some what less useful when NATO can see evidence of moving vehicles crosssing seemingly non existent bridges :)

Add in the strong likely hood of special forces units being tasked to confirm the sensor data, combined with the force multiplier effect of PGM's, combined with IMHO a willingness on the part of NATO to sustain considerable losses to interdict Soviet supplies and reinforcements and I believe NATO's efforts would have had some success. If they would have been successful enough to win the war is an open question in my view.

Even if the Soviets had enough vehicles and fuel to run dummy convoys I'm doubtful there were enough suitable roads (and rail lines ?) to make this feasible. Conceivably I suppose the Soviets might have been able to defeat the NATO sensors thru electronic means but I'm doubtful they could figure out how to do this quickly enough to make a difference.

It is also important to note that these movements have to be done with total radio silence since we can easily triangulate and identify individual radios.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Then US Naval studies in the late 1970's and early 1980's agreed. Assuming the NATO armies held, it was as the greater production potential of the NATO forces came to bear, we would see a slow push back of the Soviets. I don't have the details, but once we get to the 6 month time frame where NATO rules the sea, we evidently outproduce the Soviets on things like tanks and planes. No idea how the US Navy drew this conclusion.

Guessing because after 6 months or so, factories would have retooled for war production and begun producing fighters and bombers instead of commercial and civilian aircraft and tanks, IFVs and trucks instead of civilian vehicles
 

BlondieBC

Banned
In an air war over Europe, using a small number of F-14s to hit fighters with AIM-54s is a waste of an asset. The aircraft/missile system was designed to take out larger aircraft at a distance. Therefore, using the F-14 against Soviet AWACS aircraft or tankers or transports is the most appropriate use of this. It could also be part of a system to defend against long range MiG-23 attacks on NATO AWACS as the AIM-54 outranges the Soviet missiles, and as noted the MiG-23 is not good at dodging. As far as F-14 against Soviet fighters, between sparrow and sidewinder missiles, aircraft capabilities, and the advantage of the radar system and the 2 man crew if it gets in a situation of fighter vs fighter it has a decent shot. Except by the F-14 pilots being stupid or the Soviets getting very lucky, a close in dogfight between an F-14 and Soviet fighters is unlikely.

I tend to think that in WW3, if we happen to have surplus F-14 squadrons, they will replace assets such as F-15 in Iceland and various air defense assets in Scotland. These replace assets would be used over central Europe. I also tend to think that we will not have surplus F-14. Our plans called for every aggressive attacks toward Soviet naval bases, and these will tend to chew threw the american fighters.
 
It comes down to a couple of factors.
1:who strikes first
2:who has the better awacs
3:who has the better training
4: who can get re supply aircraft faster
 
You can hide fuel and supply dumps, and maybe try and spoof bridges (the bridge under a foot of water only works for shallow fords), but you can't hide roads and more importantly railroads. If you restrict convoys only to the hours of darkness, you are narrowing supply throughput by 30-50%. In one of the WWIII books, maybe a Clancy one, "hidden" fuel and supply dumps are found by analyzing multiple hits on truck traffic and finding points where they converge. IR signatures of active as opposed to fake dumps will be different. There is a point where camouflage/maskirova efforts become counter productive. If 25% of your trucks are running empty to dummy locations as dummy convoys, they aren't moving supplies and are still open to destruction.

Supply lines from the USSR to East Germany are heavily dependent on rail traffic. Aside from the inherent efficiencies of rail versus highway, the road net in Russia/Poland/East Germany is nowhere near as robust as in NATO, and the availability of heavy trucks, military and civilian, is much less than NATO. Another factor is that almost all NATO soldiers have experience driving cars, and can move up to trucks with brief instruction. Now these new drivers will not be as efficient or safe on the roads as those with more experience, but if you need drivers in a pinch they will serve. In the 1980s the level of car ownership/driving in the Soviet Union and WP is much lower and going from no driving experience to driving a truck of any size is much more difficult and prone to produce bad outcomes than going from car to truck. (1)

(1) During my military time, even as a doctor, I was able to get some instruction in truck driving from the SeaBees and qualified to drive various military vehicles including trucks (though not 18-wheelers).
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I know this thread is about the air war, but I thought I would just a couple of comments for a guy who was stationed in Germany from 79-84, and had a chance later in my career to actually test the M72.
On of the most difficult things to conduct in warfare is conducting a withdrawal in contact. NATO practiced this over and over and over, and we excelled.
Because we worked in "teams"; team one had to have time to fire, withdraw to the next bound, and take up defensive positions so team two could fire and withdraw. Our preferred initial engagement range was normally around 2000 meters, sometimes a bit less, because "ground dictates".
The reason I mention this is that the NATO tanks would be primarily firing from static positions, while WP tanks would primarily be firing on the move. And the T72's FCS during the early 80's just sucked on the move. Hitting a tank turret size target, even at 500 meters, would be almost impossible while moving cross county.

Another small point....NATO owned the night. No IR sights for us by then, although the WP still made extensive use of IR.

Another thing, I have been in WP vehicles, dressed in my NBC gear. Good luck fighting in that, seriously. The vehicles are very uncomfortable and tiring to operate. Dress yourself up in NBC gear, and you're next to useless.

Last point, NATO intelligence was awesome, and doesn't get anywhere near the credit they deserve. When the SU invaded Afghanistan, there was obviously a build up and movement of forces. NATO knew all about it, and we were on high alert for a few days.


I thought Russian armor was supposed to be NBC self contained. i.e. You don't have to wear the suit if you keep the hatches shut.
 
Hey, this is a really stupid question, but how far out does AWACS have to fly to avoid being taken out in an air superiority battle?
 

SsgtC

Banned
I thought Russian armor was supposed to be NBC self contained. i.e. You don't have to wear the suit if you keep the hatches shut.

It probably is, but at some point the hatches have to be opened to reload ammo, get food and water, relieve yourself, etc
 
Hey, this is a really stupid question, but how far out does AWACS have to fly to avoid being taken out in an air superiority battle?
Depends on multiple factors - the main ones being the speed of attacking aircraft combined with the range & speed of the missiles they'll fire. If there are MiG-31s coming in at Mach2.5 the AWACS will need to sit further back, basically.
In Desert Storm, the AWACS orbits were about 100 miles back into Saudi, so you can extrapolate a bit from that.
 
Depends on multiple factors - the main ones being the speed of attacking aircraft combined with the range & speed of the missiles they'll fire. If there are MiG-31s coming in at Mach2.5 the AWACS will need to sit further back, basically.
In Desert Storm, the AWACS orbits were about 100 miles back into Saudi, so you can extrapolate a bit from that.

Thanks!
 
I tend to think that in WW3, if we happen to have surplus F-14 squadrons, they will replace assets such as F-15 in Iceland and various air defense assets in Scotland. These replace assets would be used over central Europe. I also tend to think that we will not have surplus F-14. Our plans called for every aggressive attacks toward Soviet naval bases, and these will tend to chew threw the american fighters.
That makes sense to me. That being said IMHO even a modest deployment of F14's to the central front (or some form of improvised arrangement to allow other air craft to use the AIM54) would likely cause the soviets to alter their tactics to account for the possibility of AIM54's being used against their AWACS type air craft etc..

I suspect a modest F14 deployment could have a significant "multiplier" effect for NATO.
 
That makes sense to me. That being said IMHO even a modest deployment of F14's to the central front (or some form of improvised arrangement to allow other air craft to use the AIM54) would likely cause the soviets to alter their tactics to account for the possibility of AIM54's being used against their AWACS type air craft etc..

I suspect a modest F14 deployment could have a significant "multiplier" effect for NATO.

Well, NATO would have F-14 & Phoenix combo against Warsaw Pact AEW, tanker, and EW aircraft, while on the other hand WP would have S-200 with 300km's range, and I would bet some of those would have home on jam and other special tricks against AWACS aircraft.
 
I thought Russian armor was supposed to be NBC self contained. i.e. You don't have to wear the suit if you keep the hatches shut.

As the SSgt mentioned, there is an overpressure systemin most tanks of the era (the M60A1, surprisingly, did not have this); however, you still had to have your "bunny suit" and boots on, the only things you could have off was the mask and gloves. That's because there simply is not enough room in the tank to put it on. The bunny suit, especially the WP version, restricted movement a lot, was uncomfortable and hot, and was universally hated, but necessary. Once the tank was opened up to rebomb or whatever, the mask and gloves had to remain on, persistent agents undoubtedly came in with the ammo/food/water.
 
Well, NATO would have F-14 & Phoenix combo against Warsaw Pact AEW, tanker, and EW aircraft, while on the other hand WP would have S-200 with 300km's range, and I would bet some of those would have home on jam and other special tricks against AWACS aircraft.

I wouldn't get too excited about SAM threats to support aircraft, in the decades of use those aircraft rarely come within the threat range of air defense systems. I suspect you would be hard pressed to come up with an example.
 
As the tanker said, not only do you need to open up the tank/armored vehicle for various reasons, but if you are in a chemical battlefield and need to exit the vehicle when it is hit, exiting in to a chemically contaminated environment without your suit on will kill you. If you are suited up and just need to put on the mask you should be OK.

The WP chem suits were much more "rubberized" than the US/NATO gear and as a result were a real heat stress problem for Soviet troops.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
That makes sense to me. That being said IMHO even a modest deployment of F14's to the central front (or some form of improvised arrangement to allow other air craft to use the AIM54) would likely cause the soviets to alter their tactics to account for the possibility of AIM54's being used against their AWACS type air craft etc..

I suspect a modest F14 deployment could have a significant "multiplier" effect for NATO.

I see what you thinking, but I looked at summaries of 5 years worth of exercise by the US Navy on WW3. They basically moved to a "use it or lose it" attitude. And they moved to the idea that the best defense was a good offense. So to the AWACS, the best thing to do is be invading the Kuril Islands in the Pacific. It not only threatens a SSBN bastion, it will tie up AWACS and fighters. This operation used one carrier. The other idea is exactly what Clancy had in his novel to open the war, but in the war games it works. By attacking towards the Soviet naval bases in the Kola area, a whole bunch of enemy air assets are tied up. And hopefully a lot more are destroyed. The idea is to get the head of Soviet air defenses thinking about what the Navy is doing towards him, not what he can do in Germany. And all Red Storm Rising is basically another iteration of the annual war game. I would not be surprised if the US Navy actually ran the scenario a some point and time.
 
Top