Surviving the Fulda Gap
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
36 hrs to the Channel coast
In the end it would have been all out nuclear war with something like 60,000 or so nuclear detonations. The view of myself and my comrades in arms, serving as we did at the time, on a primary target, it would have been better to be instantly vapourised in a first strike than to survive the holocaust. And don't forget that our generation actually believed that it was definitely going to happen.
He mentioned that he hoped to be able to see Amsterdam at some point--hopefully not smoking too badly!
Interesting its about war but he just interested in doing as lots of red blooded males do and getting to Amsterdam.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hooter went off every week at Wildenrath in the late 70's/early 80s so we spent most of our lives locked in on base. Jokes aside, we would have been pulled on base at the drop of a hat if tensions had risen.
I guess survival chances will always be speculation. There was an interesting book called "Inside The Soviet Army" written by a soviet Army Officer, Victor Suvorov published in the early 80s. He talked strategy:
Phase 1 - 30 mins - Pre-emptive Nuclear strike on the NATO C2.
Phase 2 - 90-120 mins - Mass air attack by frontal and LRAF units
Phase 3 - 30 mins - Follow on missile attack
Phase 4 - 10 to 20 days - Offensive operations across all 3 major fronts. This would be the push to the Channel Ports and 3 days sits well in my recollection.
Phase 5 - 7 to 8 days - 2nd Echelon attack into NATO rear areas.
Most of the cold war warriors will recognise phases 1 to 3. Interestingly, none of the exercise scenarios ever followed that plot. We always had 2 days of a "nuclear free zone" before the inevitable happened and the AR5s came out.
I guess individual survival chances would have depended on location but anyone on a base would have been working in NBC conditions and subject to multiple attacks.
One thing about soviet kit is it's rugged. Given spares it'll go on for ever and a day, unlike our own kit in the 70s/80s. If you look at the numbers game at the time, it was truly horrific how outnumbered we would have been.
My view as line aircrew at Wildenrath in the late 70s? FWIW I'd have given us about 48 hours before we ran out of jets, NBC suits and ideas and walked home.
I can recommend an old BBC documentary filmed at Wildenrath in 81 and broadcast on the "Man Alive" series. Its still around on the internet in places. Some of the ground play is hilarious by todays standards but the individual interviews are quite illuminating.
I guess survival chances will always be speculation. There was an interesting book called "Inside The Soviet Army" written by a soviet Army Officer, Victor Suvorov published in the early 80s. He talked strategy:
Phase 1 - 30 mins - Pre-emptive Nuclear strike on the NATO C2.
Phase 2 - 90-120 mins - Mass air attack by frontal and LRAF units
Phase 3 - 30 mins - Follow on missile attack
Phase 4 - 10 to 20 days - Offensive operations across all 3 major fronts. This would be the push to the Channel Ports and 3 days sits well in my recollection.
Phase 5 - 7 to 8 days - 2nd Echelon attack into NATO rear areas.
Most of the cold war warriors will recognise phases 1 to 3. Interestingly, none of the exercise scenarios ever followed that plot. We always had 2 days of a "nuclear free zone" before the inevitable happened and the AR5s came out.
I guess individual survival chances would have depended on location but anyone on a base would have been working in NBC conditions and subject to multiple attacks.
One thing about soviet kit is it's rugged. Given spares it'll go on for ever and a day, unlike our own kit in the 70s/80s. If you look at the numbers game at the time, it was truly horrific how outnumbered we would have been.
My view as line aircrew at Wildenrath in the late 70s? FWIW I'd have given us about 48 hours before we ran out of jets, NBC suits and ideas and walked home.
I can recommend an old BBC documentary filmed at Wildenrath in 81 and broadcast on the "Man Alive" series. Its still around on the internet in places. Some of the ground play is hilarious by todays standards but the individual interviews are quite illuminating.
Last edited by Geehovah; 4th Apr 2011 at 13:37.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: planet earth
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was another line of thought at Gutersloh in the 1980s which was that when they got to the west bank the Weser then we would let them have a bucket of sunshine.
Was still absolutely no use to us though
On top of this, there were all the standard horror stories about 3rd Shock Army, ie they took no prisoners and would cut your balls off first etc.
Was still absolutely no use to us though
On top of this, there were all the standard horror stories about 3rd Shock Army, ie they took no prisoners and would cut your balls off first etc.
In conflict scenario everybody assumes that enemy will always get their 5hit together quickly and we mess up rather than the general cock up theory which is who ever "wins" (define what that means) just had the roll of the dices go in their favour.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a mate who's an ex-BAOR tank commander and has just returned to the UK after living in Ukraine for a number of years.
His Ukrainian ex-military mates had an interesting scenario for day one of the war. They confidently expected the Soviet conscripts to shoot all the officers and desert en-masse!
Who knows who's right? Thankfully we never had to find out.
His Ukrainian ex-military mates had an interesting scenario for day one of the war. They confidently expected the Soviet conscripts to shoot all the officers and desert en-masse!
Who knows who's right? Thankfully we never had to find out.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Stuff
Moggiee - I thought that you, Spag, Ody, Soaks and Co had another plan. Take the Ruskies to a Schoolies party and load them up with Soak's martinis - in a pint glass - they'd never have found the Channel Ports after that!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think many of us didn't think too hard about the war strategy, merely accepting that instant death was highly likely. For me life was work hard, play hard, spend hard, drink hard. Oh the halcyon days of Kellar bar, schoolies, Mally girls, bratty wagon and excellent craic. 
LFittNI,
I had a similar conversation with a Polish SU22 pilot whilst sat in one on a Polish airbase. His take was that they were totally untrusted by the Sovs and would be sent "up front" to soak up the AMRAAM shots before the PVO and EGAF took over. They were left in no doubt that they would have been shot down in the blink of an eye by the Sovs/E Germans if they showed the slightest sign of weakness. He shrugged and said that most of his crews would have probably ejected before the front - they had no interest in fighting the UK or US. He then described a recent exercise against Dutch F16As when his entire regiment had been "killed" for no loss and wryly smiled that ejection was better than a 'winder in the face or an atoll in the a**!!
I had a similar conversation with a Polish SU22 pilot whilst sat in one on a Polish airbase. His take was that they were totally untrusted by the Sovs and would be sent "up front" to soak up the AMRAAM shots before the PVO and EGAF took over. They were left in no doubt that they would have been shot down in the blink of an eye by the Sovs/E Germans if they showed the slightest sign of weakness. He shrugged and said that most of his crews would have probably ejected before the front - they had no interest in fighting the UK or US. He then described a recent exercise against Dutch F16As when his entire regiment had been "killed" for no loss and wryly smiled that ejection was better than a 'winder in the face or an atoll in the a**!!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: N42° 20' 43" W71° 04' 45"
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His Ukrainian ex-military mates had an interesting scenario for day one of the war. They confidently expected the Soviet conscripts to shoot all the officers and desert en-masse!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think any of us worried about quality until Fulcrum and Flanker appeared but numbers worried the heck out of everyone. Any nuclear option, which was buried in Sov doctrine, was the killer.
Moggiee - I thought that you, Spag, Ody, Soaks and Co had another plan. Take the Ruskies to a Schoolies party and load them up with Soak's martinis
Or perhaps a Baron Special?? --- Who has the recipe these days??
Or perhaps a Baron Special?? --- Who has the recipe these days??
I recall being told that their fighter/bomber radars wouldn't last too long as the mechanics were partial to drinking the coolant - mostly (or at least sufficiently) alcohol. Maybe a myth but has a ring of truth. I think the Suvurov book stated that the West ought to invade on New Year's Day, then after a pause stated that actually they were no less drunk on most other days.....
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I well remember 1975 setting nuclear alert in USAF F-4s at RAF Lakenheath with one B-61 on the center-line and two wing tanks. In the map case was one eye-patch to be worn over the eye of your choice so that you would have one good eye after the first nuclear flash you inadvertently saw. In addition we had our trusty 38 revolver (we always thought to be used after witnessing the second nuclear flash). In general the targets we were hitting were weapons storage facilities and it was not uncommon to be the third or fourth weapon targeted against the facility. The first two were generally missiles.
Of course as we flew through the German countryside we were assured that all our compatriots were going to make their time-on-target within the established 3 minutes to assure de-confliction along the route. And of course we had to plan for a radar delivery when we knew that the first nuclear detonation would provide so much interference that we were very unlikely to see anything on our radars.
We also wondered about some “agent” with a hunting rifle setting off the end of the runway on common ground simply knocking us off as we taxied for take-off. But at least we could get our jets in the air in 15 minutes. And yes we did have a few “contingency plans”.
Of course as we flew through the German countryside we were assured that all our compatriots were going to make their time-on-target within the established 3 minutes to assure de-confliction along the route. And of course we had to plan for a radar delivery when we knew that the first nuclear detonation would provide so much interference that we were very unlikely to see anything on our radars.
We also wondered about some “agent” with a hunting rifle setting off the end of the runway on common ground simply knocking us off as we taxied for take-off. But at least we could get our jets in the air in 15 minutes. And yes we did have a few “contingency plans”.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Except when I became targetting officer I discovered 5 aircraft on the same target and the time spread betweenn TOT was no more than 10 minutes not including the +/-3
One would have been 4 miles out as another was going bang, given the +/-3 is could have been the other way around and they would never know.
At least it was a pretty good way of dividing the defences even if it was planned murder of our own crews. I tackled the planner and he said it was what he found when he took over and he was planning deconfliction.
Later I did find two identical routes/targets with 10 between then or a minumum of 4 minutes between bangs which was fair.
Who would blink first?
It is a common assumption that the Soviets would be the first to make use of tactical and sub-strategic nuclear weapons, yet as I pointed out above, historiography indicates otherwise.
it appears that the Soviet leadership expected that the US and NATO (near simultaneously) would be the aggressors. This was backed up by debrief reports from defectors (eg Oleg Gordievsky in the early 1980s) and the sheer US overage of tactical nuclear weapons (8:1 overage) and strategic weapons (c 6:1) in the mid 1960s. (see Marc Trachtenberg's 'A Constructed Peace').
The 1968 NPT was effective in stopping state-led proliferation (except, as it happens North Korea) and the 1972 ABM treaty between the US and Russia delayed deployment of ABM systems by about 5 years. SALT I and SALT II did impose practical limitations on strategic nuclear weapons in the 1970s and 80s (respectively) but each of these well-meaning gestures were scuppered by peripheral conflicts such as Angola, Nicuaragua, Afghanistan etc.
Technical advances - such as reducing both yields and the CEsP meant that by the 1970s, the crude and inflexible function of the deterrent gave leaders fresh options and thus lowered the 'nuclear threshold'.
The worry of senior politicians (eg Sir Geoffrey Howe) and the security services was a mis-reading of intentions. Thus Soviet (and a lesser extent US) paranoia conflated with a range of 'precise' tactical weapons could have resulted in a 'pre-emptive' strike by USSR (in the correct legal sense) as they believed that NATO was about to attack them. This came to a head during the NATO CPX ABLE ARCHER in 1983, when the "Centre" under terminal-ill Andropov issued bizarre instructions to its Rezidentz to garner information on diverse subjects as late-night working in government buildings, increase collections at blood-banks, and the flight of bankers and clerics to 'safe' areas. (See Chris Andrew's tome Defence of the Realm pp 720 et seq).
Soviet target set information was briefly available in the mid 1990s however archives are well and truely locked down now, although some Western historians managed to gain access, such as Haslam. The theft of KGB archives by Mitroyken in c 1991 also give an indication that Russian J2 was sadly lacking, with long-closed facilities and infrastructure being targetted by Spetznaz and by tactical weapons - conventional and nuclear.
So, in sum, we could have expected some troop concentration areas and airfields being targetted by tactical nuclear weapons - but targetted doesn't always equate to be hit. The Russians had major problems with guidance and fusing systems - partly because of the fear of engineers and technicians to report problems and faults with systems. Now imagine you are on TACEVAL and your IED inject is a Soviet UXN...'Cordon Party: establish a safe perimeter of, oh, 10 miles...'
it appears that the Soviet leadership expected that the US and NATO (near simultaneously) would be the aggressors. This was backed up by debrief reports from defectors (eg Oleg Gordievsky in the early 1980s) and the sheer US overage of tactical nuclear weapons (8:1 overage) and strategic weapons (c 6:1) in the mid 1960s. (see Marc Trachtenberg's 'A Constructed Peace').
The 1968 NPT was effective in stopping state-led proliferation (except, as it happens North Korea) and the 1972 ABM treaty between the US and Russia delayed deployment of ABM systems by about 5 years. SALT I and SALT II did impose practical limitations on strategic nuclear weapons in the 1970s and 80s (respectively) but each of these well-meaning gestures were scuppered by peripheral conflicts such as Angola, Nicuaragua, Afghanistan etc.
Technical advances - such as reducing both yields and the CEsP meant that by the 1970s, the crude and inflexible function of the deterrent gave leaders fresh options and thus lowered the 'nuclear threshold'.
The worry of senior politicians (eg Sir Geoffrey Howe) and the security services was a mis-reading of intentions. Thus Soviet (and a lesser extent US) paranoia conflated with a range of 'precise' tactical weapons could have resulted in a 'pre-emptive' strike by USSR (in the correct legal sense) as they believed that NATO was about to attack them. This came to a head during the NATO CPX ABLE ARCHER in 1983, when the "Centre" under terminal-ill Andropov issued bizarre instructions to its Rezidentz to garner information on diverse subjects as late-night working in government buildings, increase collections at blood-banks, and the flight of bankers and clerics to 'safe' areas. (See Chris Andrew's tome Defence of the Realm pp 720 et seq).
Soviet target set information was briefly available in the mid 1990s however archives are well and truely locked down now, although some Western historians managed to gain access, such as Haslam. The theft of KGB archives by Mitroyken in c 1991 also give an indication that Russian J2 was sadly lacking, with long-closed facilities and infrastructure being targetted by Spetznaz and by tactical weapons - conventional and nuclear.
So, in sum, we could have expected some troop concentration areas and airfields being targetted by tactical nuclear weapons - but targetted doesn't always equate to be hit. The Russians had major problems with guidance and fusing systems - partly because of the fear of engineers and technicians to report problems and faults with systems. Now imagine you are on TACEVAL and your IED inject is a Soviet UXN...'Cordon Party: establish a safe perimeter of, oh, 10 miles...'
Baron Special
Hum,
Despite all this loose talk of war plans and contingencies, remember that the recipe for the Baron Special is [I]really [I] secret. This fact was stubbornly adhered to at the rotary mate's court martial when the JP entrusted with the formula refused to divulge it. Presumably the answer now resides in Lincolnshire.
Despite all this loose talk of war plans and contingencies, remember that the recipe for the Baron Special is [I]really [I] secret. This fact was stubbornly adhered to at the rotary mate's court martial when the JP entrusted with the formula refused to divulge it. Presumably the answer now resides in Lincolnshire.
I can remember Tony Geraghty commented in his book on BRIXMIS about the number of occasions they were highlighting or not as the case maybe when things were looking like spilling over based on distant readings of the situation.
Guess one of those situations where people see intent in a couple of separate unconnected actions could set someone off even though they unconnected...............maybe something like a Soviet Tank Division transiting out of East Germany and train breaks down close to a dispersal area with apparent massing of forces. At same time another loco with incoming unit does something similar while some Airbases start showing lots of activity and base work prior to arrival of new boss. Do something quickly and they assume you knew of the transit and it being a targeted weakness etc or have some patience and 24 hrs later situation back to as normal as paranoia allows.
Guess one of those situations where people see intent in a couple of separate unconnected actions could set someone off even though they unconnected...............maybe something like a Soviet Tank Division transiting out of East Germany and train breaks down close to a dispersal area with apparent massing of forces. At same time another loco with incoming unit does something similar while some Airbases start showing lots of activity and base work prior to arrival of new boss. Do something quickly and they assume you knew of the transit and it being a targeted weakness etc or have some patience and 24 hrs later situation back to as normal as paranoia allows.