Could they have been stopped?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Jan. 03 2003,14:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does Sweden have a system of temporary airfields on highways like during wartime like Finland has?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, both the JAS and the Viggen are designed to be able to land on highways.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That sounds pretty risky, isn't Stockholm covered by a pretty extensive archipelago? Are there any static coastal artillery installed? Helsinki is pretty well protected from the sea, there is an extensive network of coastal artillery.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, we have a strong costal artillery. And more strong Amphibious units. (My old unit among them )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: Forgot to ask, what kind of air defence systems are deployed around Stockholm?<span id='postcolor'>

I have no idea.

[Akira 0]

Already been discussed pretty well but I'll throw my bit in.

The US forces in Germany were known to be a "speed bump" to any massive Russian invasion (especially around the Fulda Gap). It wasn't expected for them to hold back the Russians or even win any major engagements, their only job was to slow them down long enough for NATO to get in gear, and more importantly, the vaunted North Atlantic convoy system from the US to get going.

Tactical nukes I doubt would have been used. If they had been used they would have only been used in the waning stages of the war, since any invasion of Germany by Russia would have immediately been a "world war." Nukes are the weapon of last choice, when you are about to be massively and decisively crushed. The chances that nukes would have been used I would say increase with the more Germany that is swallowed, and as forces approach the French, Belgium, Netherlands borders (who cares about Luxembourg? hehe...jk).

Red Storm Rising was good, but Team Yankee was closer to "home" for me, since it mentions Rhein-Main AFB (where I was living). Especially the part where the spouses and families are leaving by transport, since that was what I would have had to do. Was getting scary around the part about the C-141 going tree top level to escape the marauding MiGs.

[ran 0]

i think it depends .... in my opinion , if the NATO troops did their job as asked , resistance pockets would appear and i doubt that the russians would hesitate to use tactical nukes to eliminate these pockets

-edit- western forces could have used tac nukes on roads and convoys to cut soviet advance

[Necromancer- 0]

heck if the Russians invaded Europe, then they wouldn't occupy us for long as the USSR falls apart few years later.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Jan. 04 2003,01:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">heck if the Russians invaded Europe, then they wouldn't occupy us for long as the USSR falls apart few years later.<span id='postcolor'>

maybe that the fall of the soviet union wouldn't have happend if the red army had swept over western europe

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 03 2003,15:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Red Storm Rising was good, but Team Yankee was closer to "home" for me, since it mentions Rhein-Main AFB (where I was living).<span id='postcolor'>

When you lived there we were almost neighbours. In a straight line to the AFB from my house it`s around 15-20km only

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 02 2003,05:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vixer @ Jan. 03 2003,04:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the netherlands they had a big area that would be flooded by exploding some riverbanks so the Soviet tanks need to drive around it and then could be taken out untill there arrived more allied forces.<span id='postcolor'>

hopefully that is working during summer, not winer. if i remember correctly, NEtherlands tried that tactic against French Revolutionists and failed, due to the water being frozen.

anyways, i doubt if nukes would have been used, ppl saw what happens when nukes are used and are willing to avoid it.<span id='postcolor'>

In Belgium this tactic was used against the Germans in WWI, with help of a civilian who could open those gates that hold all the water (dunno the name) the Germans were drowned.

[-76-Chavez 0]

As I recall from an article of the "Spiegel" they did a research about this and at the height of CW it would have taken the sovs 48 hours at max to occupy Germany, France and stuff (not sure about sweden...).

IMHO I also think that the sovs would have been unstoppable without nukes (and no one wants to use those!.

The sovs would suffer quite high losses but they wouldnt care as they got much resources.

And the talking that the sovs just had minor quality equipement is false I guess, they had/have* very good stuff.

* Yes,I know the CCCP doesnt exist anymore, Im meaning russia...

[supersheep 0]

about red storm rising...

if you remember, it was only because the spetznatz major was captured that they finally realised the soviets were coming, and send in the pre-emptive strike that hit their bridging equipment. without that, the soviets probably would have got across the river (forget its name, sorry) quicker. when i read the book, it seemed to me that clancy had to put in a large number of events that, if one of them had gone differently, the soviets probably would have won.

and in the real world, i belive that it would have taken a hell of a lot of skill and no little luck for nato to have stopped the warpac. they just had too many men, tanks, etc. sure nato had the advantages of skill and equipment quality, but there wasn't such a great gap between the two. maybe in skill, but not in equipment. the fulcrum is the worlds best close-range dogfighter, and... i'm sure they have other stuff that was better too. look at the fulcrum, ok! the fulcrum!

[Necromancer- 0]

the Russians dont have F-14's with AIM-54 Phoenix AA missiles.

So those MIG-29's aren't very effective against those long range AA missiles.

[Jinef 2]

Yeah it's all very nice to think of the cold war as a disaster that was averted by the west but in reality the Russians were in huge defensive formations and the mass of their forces would have taken weeks to mobilise, NATO could have seen it weeks before it happened. The sad truth is that if we used Nukes we would be buggered but the russians would go on.

We found this out when a Mig 25 Foxbat which can go just over Mach 3 to catch up with the SR71s defected to Japan. So everyone rushed to get it but of course with their far superior logistics the Americans got their first and took it back to the US and ripped it apart to find any new technology. They found out it didn't even have microchips and still used valves in it's circuits! Well they had a good laugh about that and decided to ship it back to Russia with a message saying something along the lines of "This new Mig is shit, give it up".

However we got hold of it along the way and decided to take it apart also, we realised that the Russians were very capable of making microchips or even importing them so there must be a reason why they used valves. The EMP field released when a nuclear weapon went off would render America's, Britain's, Germany's, Italy's, Sweden's, and every other big western player's airforce and hightech military useless. An F15 would turn into a heavy lump of metal with no flight contols at all while the entire Russian and Chinese military would still be operating at 100%;

The Russians were ingenious and i've heard loads of stories of mutual respect between the British and Russian forces especially the lightnings that would fly out and have chats with the russians as they escorted their marine patrols.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Jan. 05 2003,14:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the Russians dont have F-14's with AIM-54 Phoenix AA missiles.

So those MIG-29's aren't very effective against those long range AA missiles.<span id='postcolor'>

What about MiG-31's with R-33's and Su-27's with R-77's?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 06 2003,04:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Jan. 05 2003,148)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the Russians dont have F-14's with AIM-54 Phoenix AA missiles.

So those MIG-29's aren't very effective against those long range AA missiles.<span id='postcolor'>

What about MiG-31's with R-33's and Su-27's with R-77's? <span id='postcolor'>

I don't know much about AA missiles except that some are heatseeking and others are guided by an internal radar mounted in the nose of the rocket. From my time in the coastal artillery we had some fancy ground to air system called Bofors Robot 70 (where an operator points a laserbeam at the airplane and then fires a rocket).

If a missile (AA) is (by radar) locked at an airplane - are there ways to avoid the rocket?

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 06 2003,05:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If a missile (AA) is (by radar) locked at an airplane - are there ways to avoid the rocket?<span id='postcolor'>

where to begin...well, the first thing to do is to try to "beam" the radar of the missile or the plane guiding the missile, by turning your aircraft so it is at a 90 degree angle from the radar (Doppler Radar's are most widely used, and they require a target to be moving away from or towards the radar in order to track properly. If you move at a 90 degree angle from the radar (and therefore not change the distance as much) you make yourself harder to track. Next, chaff, and/or active radar jamming, and if possible, get down low, possibly the radar will loose you in ground clutter. Those are some of the main ways.

[Mister Frag 0]

I'm certainly no expert on radar guidance, but I don't think you can have it both ways.

Either the Doppler effect is utilized and you can minimize your chance of detection by flying perpendicular to the approaching missile, or you can hide in ground clutter, which is completely stationary and thus not subject to the Doppler effect.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 06 2003,05:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 06 2003,054)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If a missile (AA) is (by radar) locked at an airplane - are there ways to avoid the rocket?<span id='postcolor'>

where to begin...well, the first thing to do is to try to "beam" the radar of the missile or the plane guiding the missile, by turning your aircraft so it is at a 90 degree angle from the radar (Doppler Radar's are most widely used, and they require a target to be moving away from or towards the radar in order to track properly. If you move at a 90 degree angle from the radar (and therefore not change the distance as much) you make yourself harder to track. Next, chaff, and/or active radar jamming, and if possible, get down low, possibly the radar will loose you in ground clutter. Those are some of the main ways.<span id='postcolor'>

I guess the "fire and forget-doctrine" not allways work then.

I knew heatseeking missiles can be fooled by chaff or even turning and flying towards the sun.

So one could possibly expect this scenario then: Two opposing groups of fighters racing towards eachoter - firing their long range rockets - not hurting eachother very much.

Then comes the dogfighting.

Kinda sounds like something from the napoleonic wars: Two enemies firing their muscets or whatever and then racing towards eachoter with the sword drawn.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 06 2003,05:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm certainly no expert on radar guidance, but I don't think you can have it both ways.

Either the Doppler effect is utilized and you can minimize your chance of detection by flying perpendicular to the approaching missile, or you can hide in ground clutter, which is completely stationary and thus not subject to the Doppler effect.<span id='postcolor'>

hmm...this makes me wonder if there is invented a system where radar guided missiles with their own internal radar could be helped by the radar of an awacs plain or something like that? If only in theory it should make it more effective to hit a target.

......or sort of like the new US weapon shield system where several radarstations detect and "triangulate" (is that the right word for it? ) the position of incoming rockets.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I would lile to add my Mr. Know-it-all comments but unfortunately I am toooooo lazy to read all that stuff, so just ignore me!

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 06 2003,05:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Either the Doppler effect is utilized and you can minimize your chance of detection by flying perpendicular to the approaching missile, or you can hide in ground clutter, which is completely stationary and thus not subject to the Doppler effect.<span id='postcolor'>

You forget that the missile's or the opposing aircraft's radar is moving. So relatively the ground isn't stationary.

*edit* Putting yourself perpendicular to an enemy fighter's radar would be more useful in the initial stages, you might break lock before he fires, or at the stage where the missile still needs guidance from the fighter that launched it, as opposed to it's own internal radar. Getting low would not affect the radar of modern fighters as much (though it wouldn't make their job any easier), but you have to remember that as a missile's internal radar is on a one way trip, it needs to be much less expensive and therefore less capable. Also a missile travels faster than the jet it is tracking, so the doppler effect against the ground would be more pronounced.

[Frisbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 06 2003,05:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess the "fire and forget-doctrine" not allways work then.

I knew heatseeking missiles can be fooled by chaff or even turning and flying towards the sun.<span id='postcolor'>

Chaff is against radar guided missiles

Flares for IR guided

I like the russians frontal airforce,operating from fields and stuff like that.

Don't know much western mach2+ planes that can do the same a Mig23 can (in terms of operating from rough terrain)

I think the swedish airforce also operated in much the same manner,avoiding to operate from vulnerable airbases.

[Jinef 2]

Do you people ever keep ontopic?

[Akira 0]

Why Invading Germany Would Have Gone Downhill Very Fast;

or Why It's Tough To Defend Things 4000 Miles Away....

by Akira, Arm Chair Stratigist Extrordinaire

Accepted Soviet stratigic doctrine has long said that the invasion of Germany would take a three pronged attack. The Northern Section aimed at cutting off the northern shipping cities, the Central Section aimed at penetrating and cutting off the German industrial heartland, and the Southern Section (aim escaped me but I am sure Rammstein AFB figures heavily).

As stated before, the US forces in Germany were meant as little more than a speedbump. For the most part German and other NATO forces would have to be relied on to do most of the fighting in the beginning stages (since any attack on Germany would automatically activate NATO participation). The US would either have to risk airlifting troops and supplies (slow and limited capacity and questionable with possible marauding Soviet fighters), or gear up for the big convoy push of supplies. Now imagine if you are the Soviet leader who came up and executed this brain-child. A massive convoy of troops, and supplies is headed for either Great Britian, and/or France. You certainly can't let that convoy reach those harbours can you? So begins the Battle Of The North Atlantic. You unleash your naval resources (if you haven't already), which will automatically expand the conflict. You have a tough decision to make at whether to grab Iceland, diplomatically try to keep it neutral, or let NATO have the run of the place...an important island in a big ocean.

Now Scandanavia is within striking distance of your imporant naval harbours, and Blackjack/Bear/Backfire airbases. What do you do about them? The choices are the same as with Iceland. I will allow my Finish/Swedish/Norwegian breathern take that part up since they now their weapons and tactics far better than I. In any case that risks another expansion of the war.

Someone mentioned that a study said that it would take the Soviets only 48 hours to swallow Germany. I find that unlikely, as 48 hours is hardly time to secure an entire country (not to mention the cities). Sieges of cities are possible, but total security is an impossiblity in 48 hours. Talk about guerrillas running rampant.

Now whether the conflict expanded into the Pacific is questionable. China might find the US distraction with Europe a good time to "re-unify." N. Korea might find it a good time to settle scores with the South. The Soviet Union might (like in RSR) stand down in the Pacific to avoid global conflict. Or they might attack in order to strain US resources. The Middle East might go up in flames as Arab states find it a good time to take on Isreal again.

An attack on Germany would immediately escalate into a Northern hemisphere war...one that might be impossible to contain as each combatant tries to gain the upper hand.

Should Germany be on the verge of collapse, what would the likelihood of German commanders taking matters into their own hands with nukes be?

My two cents.

And please forgive the mis-spellings...I'm trying to kickstart my brain this Monday morning.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Jan. 06 2003,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you people ever keep ontopic?<span id='postcolor'>

Ever notice how human conversation sometimes branches out to a related topic? You should be one to speak anyways, being such an archeologist

Now to go back on topic: If a war had started I don't really see a way it could have been kept from going nuclear. It may have been a prolonged conventional war of attrition, but eventually one side would be on the verge of collapse, and at that point I think nukes would start flying.

[mr. Duck 0]

Nukes flying? I believe that depends on what leaders both sides have. No sane person will do such a thing cause it will likely trigger the end of the world. But then again, what sane person would start a war?

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 06 2003,09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should Germany be on the verge of collapse, what would the likelihood of German commanders taking matters into their own hands with nukes be?<span id='postcolor'>

Where would they get nukes from?