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

SsgtC

Banned
You might see the Foxhounds in PVO colours over the top of Scandinavia. There were many Foxbat defence suppression and recon variants in VVS service too.
But standard MiG-25/MiG-31 v F-15 air combat would be very, very rare. Not impossible either though.

I agree with that. I could see them MAYBE being used at the tail end of an air battle to try and ambush NATO fighters on their way back to base once the NATO birds have expended all their missiles.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
I agree with that. I could see them MAYBE being used at the tail end of an air battle to try and ambush NATO fighters on their way back to base once the NATO birds have expended all their missiles.

Maybe those on a recon mission (armed with AAMs) accidently fall into a battle? Or, someone panics and says fill the skies with EVERYTHING that can fly when the air war goes for sh*t.
A deliberate set-piece battle with such aircraft taking on the other like that would be a comparison of a sea engagement between a Kirov-class battlecruiser and a Iowa-class battleship: all great for speculation of capabilities and the rule-of-cool but it would take a particular set of circumstances to get them to meet each other in combat.
 
You might see the Foxhounds in PVO colours over the top of Scandinavia. There were many Foxbat defence suppression and recon variants in VVS service too.
But standard MiG-25/MiG-31 v F-15 air combat would be very, very rare. Not impossible either though.

This brought up a question for me. Was the division of the Soviet air forces into PVO and VVS (plus Naval Aviation) an asset or a liability for the Warsaw Pact?
 
I think that the use of chemicals is being taken far too lightly here. With the WP's huge inventory, its too much an advantage for them to use them without NATO being forced to go nuclear. And IIRC, using persistent chemicals is going to reduce Germany to something akin to an unlivable desert. It's one thing for chemicals to break down over time and be decontaminated and washed away by rain to use for military purposes. Its another to make even farmland fit for safe every day civilian habitation.

There's also the practical considerations that logistical provisions for both sides when it came to dealing with the chemical environment were... not stellar. Sure, the more immediate protective gear was all there but, for example, neither side had the first clue how they were going to provide the massive quantities of uncontaminated clean water that would be needed to decontaminate exposed equipment. Such sort of longer-term measures are pretty damn necessary if ones going to operate within these immense gas clouds for days and weeks on end.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
This brought up a question for me. Was the division of the Soviet air forces into PVO and VVS (plus Naval Aviation) an asset or a liability for the Warsaw Pact?

Yes, no, not sure. I've wrote loads about it but have only taken a fictional approach.
Its a damn good question that has just stumped me for an answer.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Maybe those on a recon mission (armed with AAMs) accidently fall into a battle? Or, someone panics and says fill the skies with EVERYTHING that can fly when the air war goes for sh*t.
A deliberate set-piece battle with such aircraft taking on the other like that would be a comparison of a sea engagement between a Kirov-class battlecruiser and a Iowa-class battleship: all great for speculation of capabilities and the rule-of-cool but it would take a particular set of circumstances to get them to meet each other in combat.

I would have loved to see a Kirov try and take on an Iowa. If the Kirov can keep her distance, she's got a chance. If the Iowa can get within gun range though, Kirov will be on the bottom shortly.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
I would have loved to see a Kirov try and take on an Iowa. If the Kirov can keep her distance, she's got a chance. If the Iowa can get within gun range though, Kirov will be on the bottom shortly.

A submarine, a regiment of Backfires or a flotilla of missile-boats would probably show up right in the middle and take all the glory away!
 
I know the MiG-25 was more a useful speed intercept than dogfighter, but would it have any chance against an F-15?

IIRC, by the 1980s, the MiG-25 was predominantly used for reconnaissance and bomber intercept. Prior to the Flankers and Fulcrums, the primary fighter that would have engaged Eagles was the MiG-23 as that was the most widely deployed fighter in Eastern Europe. So if you are evaluating air superiority, that's your Soviet horse to bet on.
 
I would have loved to see a Kirov try and take on an Iowa. If the Kirov can keep her distance, she's got a chance. If the Iowa can get within gun range though, Kirov will be on the bottom shortly.

I recall this one scenario in Harpoon that had the USS Missouri and her battlegroup vs the Kirov and her battlegroup. Seemed that about 60% of the time, the Iowa managed to get into gun range and then it was all over for the Warsaw Pact force but for the crying.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I recall this one scenario in Harpoon that had the USS Missouri and her battlegroup vs the Kirov and her battlegroup. Seemed that about 60% of the time, the Iowa managed to get into gun range and then it was all over for the Warsaw Pact force but for the crying.

Honestly, what it's going to come down to is Harpoons vs Soviet SAMs and Shipwrecks vs American SAMs. If the Shipwrecks hit Iowa's armor, odds are there may be some shock damage but nothing that will affect her combat capability.

OTOH, if Kirov is hit by Harpoons, they could do enough damage to slow her enough that Iowa can catch up and start putting 2700 lb shells into her.
 
Honestly, what it's going to come down to is Harpoons vs Soviet SAMs and Shipwrecks vs American SAMs. If the Shipwrecks hit Iowa's armor, odds are there may be some shock damage but nothing that will affect her combat capability.

OTOH, if Kirov is hit by Harpoons, they could do enough damage to slow her enough that Iowa can catch up and start putting 2700 lb shells into her.

That's usually what happened in those cases. Kirov ate a harpoon or exocet that snuck through her screen and that slowed her and her escorts down enough that the Iowa was able to pull into 16 inch range and then, like I said, it was all over but the crying. The others are usually some variant on both sides somehow fumbling into point blank range before detecting each other or the Warsaw Pact player being way too gung-ho and charging right at the NATO task force at flank speed.
 

SsgtC

Banned
That's usually what happened in those cases. Kirov ate a harpoon or exocet that snuck through her screen and that slowed her and her escorts down enough that the Iowa was able to pull into 16 inch range and then, like I said, it was all over but the crying. The others are usually some variant on both sides somehow fumbling into point blank range before detecting each other or the Warsaw Pact player being way too gung-ho and charging right at the NATO task force at flank speed.

Thinking about it, she wouldn't even have to eat the leaker depending on when the Iowa task force caught up to her. If it was at the end of a high-speed run before she could refuel, Iowa would have a huge speed advantage. Kirov could only make 20kts on her nuc plant. She needed her steam plant to make up the other 13. If she's low on fuel, Iowa can pick her off at her leisure
 
If the Shipwrecks hit Iowa's armor, odds are there may be some shock damage but nothing that will affect her combat capability.

Your talking a warhead with similar composition to a bunker buster bomb impacting the Iowa at around 2.5 times the speed of sound. A single direct hit from a conventional Shipwreck has good odds of mission killing her. Two to three would likely sink her outright.
 
They never seemed that competent (Red Army Faction and the other similar Terrorist groups of that era). Kidnapping, robberies and the occasional bomb yes, but acquiring and using heavy weapons not so much.

In one of the more Pro-Soviet and outlandish WWIII 1980s era novels, the author purported that direct Soviet sabotage (GRU/KGB) of NATO airbases (by suicide squads) would result in the destruction of virtually all of NATO's air assets on the ground. Apparently the author came from the Walter C. Short school of warfare.:rolleyes:

There's also the practical considerations that logistical provisions for both sides when it came to dealing with the chemical environment were... not stellar. Sure, the more immediate protective gear was all there but, for example, neither side had the first clue how they were going to provide the massive quantities of uncontaminated clean water that would be needed to decontaminate exposed equipment. Such sort of longer-term measures are pretty damn necessary if ones going to operate within these immense gas clouds for days and weeks on end.

And that the persistent gas would remain in fatal levels of residue on the ground regardless of levels of decontamination. The soldiers might be safe from airborne gas at that point, but there'd be the issue of all those countless civilian rotting corpses fouling up the water table. Not too mention that for both sides it really wouldn't be safe to remove protective gear for touching hard surfaces. This isn't all happening in a field exercise.

Then there's the matter of having of having to import several billion tons of insect larvae to allow for crosspollination before even the simplest crops can be grown...:eek: Win-lose-or-draw for either side. Which brings us back to "Does the USSR even CARE if their WP 'allies' see their countries turned into a desert?":mad:

I would have loved to see a Kirov try and take on an Iowa. If the Kirov can keep her distance, she's got a chance. If the Iowa can get within gun range though, Kirov will be on the bottom shortly.

I confused...? Isn't this like an argument of carriers vs. battleships? Both the Iowa and the Kirov were nuclear armed during the Cold War. Does the Kirov get to use its arsenal of missiles with conventional warheads? IIRC they weren't compatible for anything but nukes (too high a re-entry speed). The Iowa hade harpoons and cruise missiles, the cruise missiles including nuke versions, the harpoons I'm not sure about. Gun range IMO would be irrelevant. AISI, it would all depend on whether both sides had satellite intel, and if they started far enough away. If far distant, with nukes, bye-bye Iowa. Though the cruise missiles might turn the battle into MAD. If conventional, then IMO its Iowa all the way. The SLCMs are a great asset.
 
Antiship missiles in general simply are not designed to penetrate the sort of armor any WWII battleship like an Iowa had. Sure there might be shock damage, and things like radar antennas and some installations like CIWS or harpoon launchers (if a direct hit) would be damaged, but the ship as a whole - nope. In WWII 250 and 500 lb GP bombs did very little serious damage to battleships, heavy cruisers etc. To do damage you needed armor piercing bombs. The shipwreck missile carries a 750kg HE warhead, not armor piercing. A big boom but not going to penetrate anyplace important. Unexpended fuel may represent a bigger nuisance due to fire.
 
Antiship missiles in general simply are not designed to penetrate the sort of armor any WWII battleship like an Iowa had... The shipwreck missile carries a 750kg HE warhead, not armor piercing.

Factually wrong. The Shipwreck's warhead is encased in a armored shell of 3.5 inches of steel specifically for armored piercing purposes. That's almost as much as a Tall Boy. Oh, and it features a delay fuse. Roughly 1000kg of penetrating casing and explosive filler encased in a further 6,000 kilograms of missile impacting at Mach 2.5 has more then enough kinetic energy to punch through the Iowas armor and deliver the warhead into the interior of the ship.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
I confused...? Isn't this like an argument of carriers vs. battleships? Both the Iowa and the Kirov were nuclear armed during the Cold War. Does the Kirov get to use its arsenal of missiles with conventional warheads? IIRC they weren't compatible for anything but nukes (too high a re-entry speed). The Iowa hade harpoons and cruise missiles, the cruise missiles including nuke versions, the harpoons I'm not sure about. Gun range IMO would be irrelevant. AISI, it would all depend on whether both sides had satellite intel, and if they started far enough away. If far distant, with nukes, bye-bye Iowa. Though the cruise missiles might turn the battle into MAD. If conventional, then IMO its Iowa all the way. The SLCMs are a great asset.
SS-N-19 Shipwrecks on the Kirovs were conventional and nuclear armed. Tomahawks on the Iowas had TASM conventional armaments, so did the Harpoons (the latter have always been non-nuclear).
 

SsgtC

Banned
Factually wrong. The Shipwreck's warhead is encased in a armored shell of 3.5 inches of steel specifically for armored piercing purposes. That's almost as much as a Tall Boy. Oh, and it features a delay fuse. Roughly 1000kg of penetrating casing and explosive filler encased in a further 6,000 kilograms of missile impacting at Mach 2.5 has more then enough kinetic energy to punch through the Iowas armor and deliver the warhead into the interior of the ship.

Factually wrong. The casing around a Shipwreck's HE warhead wouldn't even come close to penetrating the main armor belt of the Iowa. Thats over 12" of armor. A 3.5" casing will break apart against that. The armor may be damaged, but it's not penetrating. Look how actual AP shells are made. The steel is MUCH thicker than 3.5" and they still had a hell of a time penetrating. And before you mention the speed, a 16" APC shell from an Iowa moved at Mach 2.21. A Shipwreck doesn't have a prayer in hell of defeating an Iowas armor
 
I am now really tempted to buy CMANO.

It would be a good day to simulate Warsaw and NATO aircraft at the single digit to low double digit fights.

Also would simulate what happens when an Iowa goes against a Kirov.
 
Top