WW3 in the 70s?

Monk78

CV12Hornet said:
Maybe stay on the thread topic? If you really want to discuss the intricacies of 1980s naval air defense make your own thread.
Click to expand...
Ok
Let’s talk about how air defenses of ussr would respond to latest NATO attack aircraft f111 a6 F4E etc esp switching to low level operations now in 70s while Soviets still stuck in high altitude mode ( most of their SAMs and interceptors are tailor made for high altitude interception)
 
Last edited:
juanml82

juanml82

Monk78 said:
Ok
Let’s talk about how air defenses of ussr would respond to latest NATO attack aircraft f111 a6 F4E etc esp switching to low level operations now in 70s while Soviets still stuck in high altitude mode ( most of their SAMs and interceptors are tailor made for high altitude interception)
Click to expand...
They get destroyed by nuclear attacks
 

ferdi254

Banned
In 1975 we are talking around 45,000 nuclear warheads. Warpac and NATO do not have to discuss tanks, planes, rockets, all this will glow in the dark.
 

EagleKeeper

Monk78 said:
What about mid 80s ? How was the AAM situation in Europe?
Click to expand...
I wasn't in direct aircraft support after mid 82 but I don't think stocks really got better until at least a few years later. There were delays in production of the new versions of AIM-7s and AIM9s that slowed down the process even after it was recognized.
Monk78 said:
most Badgers flew with just one missile
Short range yes maybe 2
But there is not an infinite number of badgers and kingfish
Click to expand...
The attacker will always be able to concentrate assets better than the defender since he can choose the time and place while the defender has to be ready at all times.
 

EagleKeeper

Insane Ranter said:
Probably the easiest POD. Just have the US and Soviet navies "bump" into each other in the Mediterranean. Soviet's get wary of an American recon flight and shoot down a plane. Americans sink a Soviet destroyer in response. I'll let others take it from there on the mushroom cloud farms that start to pop up later.
Click to expand...
Actually the US and USSR took exceptional efforts to make sure their paths didn't cross. Even the air supply routes were very tightly routed to make sure the Soviet flights from Eastern Europe to Egypt didn't interfere with the American flights from Spain to Israel. Both sides knew the potential of 'mistakes' and went out of their way to make sure they didn't happen
 

ferdi254

Banned
@Monk78 they did just to make sure they have a conventional deterrent but once nukes fly one side could have 1940 conventional systems (of course plus all the rockets with nuclear warheads and modern planes for gravity bombs) with the other having 1989 equipment.

Which side has what would not matter a minute anymore as both sides would be glowing in the night.
 

Monk78

ferdi254 said:
@Monk78 they did just to make sure they have a conventional deterrent but once nukes fly one side could have 1940 conventional systems (of course plus all the rockets with nuclear warheads and modern planes for gravity bombs) with the other having 1989 equipment.

Which side has what would not matter a minute anymore as both sides would be glowing in the night.
Click to expand...
That’s why I wonder why so much budget was sunk into F15s M1A1 and Ticonderogas etc when conventional weapons of a generation earlier could have served almost as well in a potential ww3 like scenario
 

Rickshaw

Resurgam said:
Pretty much. Posters in threads like these scoffing their country will be completely untouched because it's unaligned forget that everything's connected, and at a certain point things will fail or suffer..
Click to expand...
If you take into account the unreliability of the strategic delivery systems, Australia would be largely immune. We are simply too far away and unimportant for the Soviets to waste warheads on. They have much more important targets to strike in the US and Europe. Our cities are too far apart and would not be of interest to them...
 

Bakenellan

Rickshaw said:
If you take into account the unreliability of the strategic delivery systems, Australia would be largely immune. We are simply too far away and unimportant for the Soviets to waste warheads on. They have much more important targets to strike in the US and Europe. Our cities are too far apart and would not be of interest to them...
Click to expand...
I'd think they would spare a few for major cities and sea ports just in case. May luck out and malfunction of course. Another point - was Australia even in range for Soviet ICBMs? If not you would be only in danger from sumbarines which happen to be in South Pacific.

And - almost on topic - I just stumbled on this Cold War Era relic. An educational material for 5th grade Soviet school on use of nuclear shelters. It is even somewhat in correct time range, though more like 1960-s in spirit. In Russian obviously.
 

TDM

Kicked
Monk78 said:
That’s why I wonder why so much budget was sunk into F15s M1A1 and Ticonderogas etc when conventional weapons of a generation earlier could have served almost as well in a potential ww3 like scenario
Click to expand...
Because not every armed conflict scenario US forces might be involved in involved thermonuclear war, its just during the cold war Soviet conventional forces were the natual yardstick to measure by (especially as they were found elsewhere).

There was also some hope that a conflict could be kept conventional if certain circumstances arose, however this was maybe wishful thinking
 
Last edited:

ferdi254

Banned
And then Australia will find out the hard way that the next time one of their turbines in a power plant is due to heavy maintenance or needs spare parts neither trained engineers nor spare parts turn up.
 

Seandineen

Could we see new powers in Africa? Assuming Vorster isn't a complete fool, he will make use of a true partnership with African leaders. Aparthied, communism, and consumerism are dead, Someone will have to pick up the pieces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top