tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post6829136040640997637..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: The early FRG LuftwaffeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-7169942161170620022018-07-31T20:33:11.768+02:002018-07-31T20:33:11.768+02:00The Argentines didn't have HAWK. The SAMs they...The Argentines didn't have HAWK. The SAMs they had were Blowpipe, SA-7, Tigercat and Roland. I believe they had one Roland launcher in the Falklands which shot down one Sea Harrier. It was subsequently captured intact.Chris Werbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12401452513193996839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-84418120592699399352018-07-31T12:54:53.552+02:002018-07-31T12:54:53.552+02:00One could go much beyond the conventional approach...One could go much beyond the conventional approaches used by NATO and venture into Raumverteidigung and mobile mechanised forces too small and too nimble for proportionate nuclear munitions employments.<br /><br />You could even go so far as blowing up Rhine bridges in Cologne yourself so the Soviets don't do the same with a 150 kt nuke (with Cologne as collateral damage).<br /><br />I suppose the problems with NATO's Cold War approach to deterrence and defence were that they were terribly fascinated by nuclear firepower, but too lazy to become truly innovative, thinking outside the box in response to Soviet nuclear munitions.<br /><br />The way to go was to offer hardly any targets worthy of nuclear attack, and to still offer a formidable non-conventional resistance to invasion, blockade and bombardment.<br /><br />The Austrian Spannocchi was a much more impressive thinker than all but maybe one NATO general IMO.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-28326017117600264052018-07-31T12:47:06.541+02:002018-07-31T12:47:06.541+02:00They did something similar with Apaches in 1991, b...They did something similar with Apaches in 1991, but such stunts weren't even necessary. The Soviets had figured out effective standoff-jamming by the 70's. HAWK and IHAWK were of little use against the WP, and Nike Hercules had marginal military relevance.<br /><br />Radar-based SAMs only appear to have a decent track record against forces that just had the bare bones equipment. They failed against forces that knew the SAM system intimately (such as the Brits knew HAWK and Roland in the Falklands War) or had the ability to mount a combined arms effort / strike package.<br /><br />The irritating thing about this is that SAMs and MRAAMs are barely distinguishable nowadays. MRAAMs may be less lethal today than Sparrow was over Vietnam!S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-29979841136234677462018-07-31T02:26:06.700+02:002018-07-31T02:26:06.700+02:00I apologise, I looked for a source to affirm what ...I apologise, I looked for a source to affirm what I'm about to say. No joy.<br /><br />After the yanks moved from massive retaliation to MAD, all of the tactical and strategic war games resulted in rapid conventional overmatch followed by hasty calls up the chain for delegation of authorisation for mushroom clouds over Allemande.<br /><br />In effect, slightly delayed massive retaliation.<br /><br />"Are they coming?"<br />"Yes"<br />"Have they broken your line?"<br />"Yes"<br />"Permission for turning continental Europe into a green glowing hellpit of death?"<br />"Permission granted"<br /><br />I remember listening to one of those think-tank discussions that are uploaded to youtube where this was echoed. Good background noise for when I'm at my desk. I tried to find it. Apologies, I can't locate it. So treat this accordingly.<br /><br />Cut through the nuance. I do not believe a limited exchange is possible. Especially if accompanied by a full-on conventional spearhead. If a couple of tac nukes go off in poor old Deutschland the whole world will be glowing green before that day is done. I don't think that would be any different in 1962, I don't think different now.<br /><br />I'm not saying your book isn't counter to my understanding of what I imagined, lazily, west German starfighter pilots to be. My point is I can't imagine that would have done more than shorten the tenure of modern humanity by more than a couple of minutes.<br /><br />Side note. I've been rewatching, relistening really, to "fall of the eagles", the amazing BBC series from the 70s. Its on youtube. It carries the certain type of absolute startegic ineptitude we are witnessing at the moment. It didn't end well last time. I don't imagine it will this time either. Give it a go. A couple of episodes at least. Its worth it for Curt Jürgers as Bismarck if nothing else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-81869248182957058832018-07-30T20:37:20.403+02:002018-07-30T20:37:20.403+02:00Just a by the way, but I remember Ken Estes over o...Just a by the way, but I remember Ken Estes over on TN describing a military exercise in 1981 in which US Army AH-1s posing as Hinds flew under the radar and hosed-down SAM and radar sites in W. Germany essentially unopposed.Chris Werbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12401452513193996839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-75618550712430969672018-07-29T16:06:50.973+02:002018-07-29T16:06:50.973+02:00According to the book the Americans actually moved...According to the book the Americans actually moved on from massive retaliation since the Cuba crisis, while the German generals kept being focused on nukes, knowing that efforts to turn the Starfighter into a multi-role combat aircraft were doomed.<br /><br />I suppose with almost half of the ground troops provided, the FRG should have had leverage. A total destruction nuclear war served no-one, and a mixed conventional/nuclear war would have been lost for sure if the Bundeswehr simply went home, recognising that everyone else is an enemy and nothing but evacuation of nationals made any sense.<br /><br />The political grand strategy was Western integration though; the exploitation of such leverage was thus taboo.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-51062002963698089172018-07-29T15:15:04.551+02:002018-07-29T15:15:04.551+02:00I would make the same argument about conventinally...I would make the same argument about conventinally tipped ballistic and cruise missiles vs CAS/BAI and attack aircraft in the context of a European war were one to break out today. The difference is, SAMs now (particularly sensor agnostic ones) are getting on for survivable as BMs and would be a worthwhile investment.Chris Werbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12401452513193996839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-1139140689024675812018-07-29T13:37:38.321+02:002018-07-29T13:37:38.321+02:00I remember reading the Tornado was made to counter...I remember reading the Tornado was made to counter the continued allegiance from the yanks to this same doctrine. It provided support for the 'credible' argument that conventional interdiction/strike could be used to draw back tac nukes in operational planning.<br /><br />That shows a level of political understanding and courage we aren't seeing at the moment.<br /><br />Re your point. It wouldn't gave made any difference in the sixties if the balloon had gone up, even if the Germans had been more 'elightened'. The majority of nukes exploding in poor old Deutschland wouldn't have been fired by Germans. Perhaps some of the vigour you read about was fatalism. Recognise the scale of the problem, how many US nukes would have been used? So what's the difference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com