Comments on points raised recently
Ozgrade3/Mig 15
Fair comment and our options were limited by the logisitics of the strike profile. These profiles were low-level and the distance 'there' and back close to the max range of the BI8. Admittedly, the range option could be increased by climb to height (45,000) after the target but this put us in truly hostile combat environment than down in the weeds. Some discussion (not entirely serious) centred on the use of Gotland or Bornholm, islands of the coast of Sweden with some nice long flat beaches, as a sanctuary. These were unlikely to be involved in the scrap and were not downwind of the 'hollyhocks' area. Our own crew option was to check that base was gone and then go as far south as poss and look for a put down - navs did not have a good feeling about bale-out from the 8!!
Windy Militant
The anticipated scenario for WW3 involved a detectable build-up to hostilities, both politically and militarily, leading to the point where real military moves were made. Tactical doctrine of the time meant that NATO tried to hold on the ground but would have to resort to the nuclear option when the inevitable breakthrough of the Pact forces took place - ?Fulda Gap? It was assumed that Nato wouild get off at least the prepared QRA strikes and depending on the time available a fair number of subsequent sorties. Reaction of this type was practised at Tac-Evals and for real, at least in my case, when the Wall went up in '61. Would we have got through ?? - earlt 60's Pact forces were Mig 15 and 17, Yak 25 (Flashlight) and a few Su 7s all thought to be relatively ineffective at low level (we hoped!!) There was no SAM capability at that time at the heights we flew (way down) but lots of nast ZSu 23-2s. Luck of the draw against them. We were well trained, see comments from other above, and we did expect to make good our target runs.
Hope this sheds a little light and good to hear from all of you - missed out on the young ladies making the best of the 'four minutes' tho!