lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033 
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 25, 2016 17:33:24 GMT
This thread is dedicated to war games that where conducted at the height of the Cold War by the U.S. Naval War College over the period from 1979 to 1988. I will post the war games as depicted in this link: Global War Game - Second Series 1984 - US Naval War College and Global War Game - First Five Years - US Naval War CollegeWargame - 1979The scenario for the first Global War Game was set in 1985. Consistent with concerns over the security of oil supplies that were prevalent in 1979, the area of initial conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was Southwest Asia. An insurgency was in progress in Saudi Arabia, and international tension was high along that nation’s northern border. The United States supported Saudi Arabia by sending a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division along with a contingent of airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft and an F-15 squadron. Two aircraft carrier battle groups (CVBGs) were transferred from the Indian Ocean to proceed around Africa and join the Atlantic Fleet. Worldwide defensive measures included the forward positioning of additional maritime patrol (VP) squadrons and the movement of two CVBGs from the East Coast to positions in the North Atlantic. As the crisis mounted the Soviet Union mobilized on 11 July and the United States did the same a week later. The Soviet Union increased naval deployments in the Norwegian Sea and the Mediterranean. Concerns over the survivability of CVBGs led the United States to withdraw them from the Mediterranean to join with the two CVBGs that had recently left the East Coast and were then located north of the Azores. Hostilities began with the invasion of Saudi Arabia by four Iraqi divisions and one Soviet Union airborne division. Simultaneously, an attack was launched by the Warsaw Pact on the Central Front. Worldwide, United States and Soviet Union naval forces engaged in a series of intense battles. The Soviet Union sought to isolate the United States and its allies with a diplomatic offensive. France, Japan, Pakistan, and Algeria were offered incentives to remain neutral. Israel was guaranteed security from her Arab neighbors and an uninterrupted supply of oil in return for neutrality. The Soviet invasion of Saudi Arabia could not be contained by indigenous forces and by in-theater United States reinforcements. Therefore, the United States was compelled to withdraw to Israel. Withdrawal of the CVBGs from the Mediterranean proved to be a political and military disaster. Soviet Union was able to overwhelm the remaining regional United States forces. Deployed Soviet naval aviation/long range aviation (SNA/LRA) aircraft struck United States and allied bases throughout the area with deadly effectiveness. The Naval Air Station, Sigonella, shelled by Soviet surface units and bombed by Soviet aircraft, was rendered totally unusable. Malta fell by the evening of the war’s first day. Soviet land-based air superiority turned the central and eastern Mediterranean into a veritable Soviet lake. Politically, the NATO southern flank unraveled as Greece and Turkey were forced out of the war and Italy lay open to attack. In the Atlantic, convoy operations were implemented, and two French CVBGs augmented the United States forces that escorted shipping to Europe. A two CVBG force gainedcontrol of the Norwegian Sea, although the effort resulted in the loss of the USS
Vinson. An anti-SSBN campaign grew out of an overall United States ASW effort. The Soviet Union felt the need to respond to the depletion of part of its strategic nuclear reserve caused by this anti-SSBN campaign and did so by launching tactical nuclear weapons strikes against the United States CVBGs. An SNA/LRA raid was launched from Luanda against United States forces in the Atlantic and a second attack, out of Vladivostok, was directed against the two United States CVBGs in the Pacific. These resulted in the loss of the USS Kitty Hawk battle group (BG) in the South Atlantic and the USS Nimitz BG in the Pacific. The United States had some difficulty in selecting a suitable Soviet target for retaliation, finally settled on a Soviet anti-carrier warfare (ACW) group in the Norwegian Sea. No other use of nuclear weapons occurred. Due to the heavy commitment of Soviet forces to the Mediterranean theater, United States elected to divert the four-carrier battle force (CVBF) from a planned re-entry into the Mediterranean to support of the Central Front. The land war in Europe was nationalized (pre-scripted) rather than played out in detail, and this allowed the players to extend their timelines beyond the first few days of war. The script postulated that NATO had managed to halt, at least temporarily, the Soviet advance, and by game end, was conducting successful counterattacks. As GWG ’79 ended, the Soviet Union sought a cease-fire that would recognize the gains made in Southwest Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. The United States, while also seeking a cease-fire, refused to recognize Soviet gains and believed it held the advantage due to favorable momentum on the Central Front. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 25, 2016 22:48:38 GMT
Lordroel
Fascinating although I think you have a typo where it says "The United States sought to isolate Blue and its allies with a diplomatic offensive. France, Japan, Pakistan, and Algeria were offered incentives to remain neutral. Israel was guaranteed security from her Arab neighbors and an uninterrupted supply of oil in return for neutrality." Presume that should be the Soviet Union as the US would definitely want those countries involved on its side and expect at least a couple of them to be.
Interesting that the withdrawal of the CVNs from the Med turned out to be such a disaster. I wouldn't have expected that but its something that might happen. While the Soviets had Libya and Syria as allies Egypt is at least a pro-western neutral by this point and most other countries bordering the Med would be friendly.
Given that the nuclear boundary has been crossed, albeit at sea, I'm not sure how long it would hold so things could get very hairy in this scenario.
Not sure what the scenario means by the central front being nationalised rather than played out in detail but by most predictions that seems to be going pretty damned well for the west. Presumably the attempts to isolate France failed?
Given the size of Saudi Arabia I doubt if the pro-Soviet forces managed to occupy all of it, especially the west coast with the holy cities. However the oilfields along the east coast and possibly also the Gulf States have probably been occupied or in the latter case possibly simply cowered. Given the lack of mention of Iran as an ally I'm presuming this was after the fall of the Shah, so the US may not have an idea how the revolution would work out there and what way Iran would jump, if any.
An interesting document and detailing some very worrying times. Thanks
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 26, 2016 1:52:37 GMT
Lordroel Fascinating although I think you have a typo where it says "The United States sought to isolate Blue and its allies with a diplomatic offensive. France, Japan, Pakistan, and Algeria were offered incentives to remain neutral. Israel was guaranteed security from her Arab neighbors and an uninterrupted supply of oil in return for neutrality." Presume that should be the Soviet Union as the US would definitely want those countries involved on its side and expect at least a couple of them to be. Interesting that the withdrawal of the CVNs from the Med turned out to be such a disaster. I wouldn't have expected that but its something that might happen. While the Soviets had Libya and Syria as allies Egypt is at least a pro-western neutral by this point and most other countries bordering the Med would be friendly. Given that the nuclear boundary has been crossed, albeit at sea, I'm not sure how long it would hold so things could get very hairy in this scenario. Not sure what the scenario means by the central front being nationalised rather than played out in detail but by most predictions that seems to be going pretty damned well for the west. Presumably the attempts to isolate France failed? Given the size of Saudi Arabia I doubt if the pro-Soviet forces managed to occupy all of it, especially the west coast with the holy cities. However the oilfields along the east coast and possibly also the Gulf States have probably been occupied or in the latter case possibly simply cowered. Given the lack of mention of Iran as an ally I'm presuming this was after the fall of the Shah, so the US may not have an idea how the revolution would work out there and what way Iran would jump, if any. An interesting document and detailing some very worrying times. Thanks Steve Sorry you are right, thanks for noticing it. Always like these kind of scenarios, have sins i first read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 26, 2016 13:00:25 GMT
Wargame - 1980
The 1980 game delved into a broad range of unexplored topics. United States was hard pressed throughout, because of the Soviet Union objective and aggressive employment of forces. However, as one game participant stated: “If the object of the game was to try out strategies, dentify key issues, undergo concentrated learning experience, and, in the end, to come away with a much sharper focus on what global war might be like, then GWG ’80 was a resounding success.”
Largely because the Soviet Union set domination of Eurasia as its objective and discriminately used nuclear and chemical weapons at the outset, this game was fundamentally about escalation control rather than ships at sea. By its demonstrated will to use nuclear weapons coupled with United States pessimism about the strategic balance, the Soviet Union was able to force the United States to choose between surrender and major escalation at succeeding levels.
The 1980 game was based on elaborate, detailed scenarios which covered multiple problem areas, worldwide. Once again the setting was the year 1985, and the scenario postulated serious unrest in Eastern Europe, with the loyalty of both East Germany and Poland to the Warsaw Pact increasingly in doubt.
Oil was a major factor in this game, which cast the Soviet Union as a net importer. The combination of increased demand and the escalating crisis in Europe drove the price of gasoline in Blue to $4 per gallon. Further impacting the fuel situation was a coup in Nigeria, which then aligned itself with the Soviet Union.
In the Far East, the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam were at war, while in South Asia, the Soviet Union, still involved in Afghanistan, was mounting sharp border attacks against Pakistan in reprisal for that nation’s provision of sanctuary for Afghan “rebels.” India had also begun to mobilize against Pakistan. United States responded by sending five tactical air (TACAIR) squadrons, the 82nd airborne division, and a Marine amphibious brigade (MAB) to Pakistan. During this game, a bright spot for the United States was that relations with Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq had improved to the point that the United States could establish a major air base in the Sinai without adverse political consequences.
As the crisis became more acute, the United States withdrew the forces previously dispatched to Pakistan and repositioned them in Southern Iran and Northern Saudi Arabia with the aim of reducing the threat of confrontation with India and improving the United States ability to protect the Gulf oil fields.
In this scenario, war resulted from a deliberate, planned decision on the part of the Soviet Union. Soviet leaders felt they were in a favorable military position vis-à-vis United States, and this, coupled with increasing Warsaw Pact dissidence on the one hand and the growing need for oil on the other was sufficient motivation for the seizure of Eurasia. As in all these games, a primary tenet of the Soviet Union strategy was to avoid risking the homelands. Therefore, the Soviet Union did not open with nuclear weapons against the United States. Instead, the war began with a massive conventional attack on the Central Front, against Thrace, and through Austria. Smaller attacks were mounted in Norway and Iran. The Soviet Union also planned to intimidate Japan and France into neutrality, while applying enough pressure in Southwest Asia to divert the United States. After victory in Europe, the Soviet Union could then turn to the Persian Gulf and the Far East.
The United States/NATO political objective was the restoration of the “status quo ante bellum,” and the United States strategy was essentially reactive. The preservation of peace was attempted, and, once the war broke out, the United States moves were mainly in response to Soviet initiatives. Because the United States was not confident of success on the Central Front, the minimum United States military objective was to hold on the northern and southern flanks, the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland–United Kingdom) gap and in the eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf.
The Soviet Union launched the offensive only two days after the United States had begun to mobilize. In addition to extensive conventional attacks, the Soviet Union used chemical weapons against Iceland, Guam, and the Azores. In an unusual but very effective move, the Soviet Union detonated three nuclear air bursts off the east coast of Japan in an effort to intimidate that nation into neutrality.
Once nuclear weapons were used, the United States National Command Authority (NCA) focus shifted from the tactical level to nuclear linkage. In the process, details such as the sensitivities of third parties, mobility problems, and even outcomes in specific theaters quickly became secondary.
Consequently, GWG 1980 became, almost immediately, an exercise in the control of nuclear escalation. The United States, in response to an SNA/LRA strike from Aden that destroyed a convoy of SL-7s (high-speed container ships) in the Indian Ocean and also to the Soviet Union nuclear salvo east of Japan, elected to launch a nuclear attack on Aden with B-52s. This decision was partially influenced by an erroneous report that United States units had been destroyed in the Soviet Union nuclear demonstration off Japan. The Soviet Union response was immediate and devastating. Soviet aircraft utilized nuclear weapons to destroy three CVBGs in the Indian Ocean and a fourth CVBG was lost to nuclear attack in the Pacific. After considerable thought about a suitable target for retaliation, the United States attempted to sink two Kiev centered surface action groups (SAGs) in the Sea of Japan, with nuclear weapons. However, all the attacking aircraft were shot down prior to weapons release. Meanwhile, United States eliminated all forward deployed Yankees by conventional means.
In Europe, the war on the Central Front was not going well for the United States. Cracks had begun to show in the battle line of the northern sector and France had not transferred full control of its army to Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). Arrival of United States reinforcements was slowed as forces could not be flown directly to the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). Damage to many NATO airfields further hampered the airlift as well as the ability of TACAIR to support the battle. the United States sought a “second front” to take the pressure off the central region, but lacking any readily available forces with which to mount a challenge in other areas, the United States recognized that it would only be “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Even aggressive PRC military operations, it appeared, would not put enough pressure on the Soviet Union soon enough to make any difference.
The nuclear escalatory process attained a new dimension as the PRC, involved in a conventional war with Vietnam, sided with the United States and ordered Vietnam to cease assisting the Soviet Union. Vietnam refused, and the PRC responded by exploding a nuclear weapon over Haiphong harbor. Vietnam replied with an attack using Soviet Union-supplied nuclear weapons against four targets in the PRC. In retaliation, the PRC struck Soviet Union sites with nuclear weapons, which precipitated a major nuclear strike against the PRC by the Soviet Union.
The game reached temporary termination when the United States, desperately short of options, utilized the “hot line” to threaten an attack on Red at the SIOP (Single Integrated Operations Plan) level. This induced the Soviet Union to cease hostilities, although the Soviet Union calculated this was but a temporary pause. The game had reached D+5.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 26, 2016 14:01:37 GMT
Wargame - 1981
Probably the most intriguing aspect of GWG ’81 was the absence of combat on the Central Front. The primary Soviet objective was the historic goal of seizing the Turkish Straits. Secondly, the Soviet Union sought control of the Persian Gulf and mid-east oil. While NATO and the Warsaw Pact were intact, their enthusiasm for joining this superpower conflict was minimal.
As with the two previous games, the scenario was set in 1985. The principal crisis governing events was a dispute between the Soviet Union and Turkey over the interpretation of terms of the Montreux Convention, which regulates maritime passage through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. A specific game objective was to study factors involved in nuclear escalation.
In Turkey, the Soviet Union and its surrogates conducted a coordinated campaign to weaken and disrupt the Turkish government. This took the form of a propaganda campaign and demonstrations aimed at separating Turkey from NATO. In addition, Syria attempted to arouse Turkey’s Sunni Moslem population. The Turkish government retaliated by threatening strict interpretation of the terms of the Montreux Convention. The Soviet Union “escalated” with over-flights of Turkey, amphibious exercises in Libya, and Warsaw Pact force movements in the Black Sea, Bulgaria, and Romania.
Southwest Asia was important in this scenario. Iraq moved toward the Soviet Union camp, leading to United States concerns for the security of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. As the crisis deepened, tensions were raised by the discovery of a plan for a joint invasion of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia by Iraq and Red.
The Soviet Union commenced the war with an offensive against the secondary objective, Iran. Long-range aviation also struck targets in Saudi Arabia. Only when this campaign was well advanced did the Soviet Union attempt to capture the Turkish Straits with an advance through Thrace, supported by an invasion of eastern Turkey.
The United States struck back against Soviet facilities in the Balkans and the Crimea with conventional air strikes from bases at Cairo and Izmir, and with carrier air. Soviet retaliation, while still at the conventional level, was effective, as two CVs in the Mediterranean were sunk.
The United States, perceiving that the military situation was deteriorating and its options reduced to strategic withdrawal or nuclear escalation, chose the latter and launched Tomahawk land attack missiles-nuclear (TLAM-N) attacks on Soviet bases in the Trans-Caucasus, Vladivostok, Alexandrovsk, and Petropavlovsk. The Soviet Union responded immediately, firing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) at Diego Garcia and Guam, and the Nimitz battle group was lost, also to nuclear attack. The United States NCA released nuclear weapons to Turkey, which promptly used them against the advancing Soviet forces. The Soviet Union responded with nuclear attacks on Turkish positions.
Shortly thereafter, a nuclear cease-fire was agreed to, although a conventional war continued in Turkey. All this occurred in five days. The situation on the Central Front, though tense, never escalated to hostilities. The United States and Turkey were essentially alone in fighting the Soviet Union. Indeed, there was a degree of resentment by other NATO members over the military forces committed to this crisis by the United States when a Soviet offensive into Western Europe threatened.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 27, 2016 10:22:02 GMT
Wargame - 1982
GWG 1982 saw two major modifications from previous games. First, this game commenced with the war already in progress. The pre-hostilities phase, transition to war and initial fighting were gamed at the National Defense University (NDU) in Globex-82. This permitted GWG ’82 to examine the contours of superpower conflict further into war than would have been possible otherwise.
Second, 1982 was the first year in which Army and Air Force participation was fully integrated into the game. This adjustment to joint play provided a richer context for the conduct of military play and the development of issues.
Again set in 1985, the scenario now shifted decisively to a European focus. As in previous games, unrest among the satellites was a problem for the Soviet Union, particularly in Poland, where food shortages, increased food prices, and a slowdown by Solidarity precipitated a crisis. Further, Soviet concerns about the United States relationship with Norway emerged as an important factor. Among points at issue in this relationship were pre-positioning of the United States rapid deployment force (RDF) equipment, fishing rights and territorial claims in the Barents Sea, mineral rights on the Svalbard continental shelf, and joint United States, Canadian, Norwegian, and United Kingdom exercises in northern Norway.
Southwest Asia remained unsettled and a potential problem area for both the United States and the Soviet Union. Relations between Israel and Syria had continued to deteriorate, resulting in open warfare in 1985. Soviet forces had intervened in Iran at the request of the post-Khomeini government (that leader having been assassinated) to put down civil strife. The Soviet Union retained a presence in Iran through a subsequent grant of port facilities in the southern part of that nation. Saudi Arabia felt threatened by these developments, particularly so following an Iranian attack on a section of an Iraqi oil pipeline. A Saudi request for deployment of the RDF was granted.
Events in the Far East centered upon an agreement between the People’s Republic of China and Japan for joint development of a large oil field in the Bohai Bay area. North Korea remained a threat that tended to divert the United States from other objectives.
The primary Soviet objective was the elimination of the United States political and military influence in Europe through a successful invasion of the Federal Republic of Germany and the consequent dismantling of NATO. The Soviet military strategy in support of this goal was a conventional offensive across the north German plain to cut off the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) and seize the Channel ports. Soviet forces would hold in the center and south, while diplomatic initiatives were made to secure French neutrality. The Soviet Union also planned to advance into northern Norway to gain a secure flank and to improve the tactical position in the event of a United States naval initiative in the Norwegian Sea. A subsidiary ground thrust by the Soviet Union into Thrace had similar objectives: to anchor the southern flank while increasing options for operations in the eastern and central Mediterranean.
The initial Soviet offensive in Europe commenced as planned but was stalemated at the Rhine. Similarly, the attack in Norway was checked at the Skibotn line by Norwegian units reinforced by a USMC MAB. The Soviet Union, rather than violate Swedish or Finnish neutrality to outflank this position, struck the airfields at Bodo, Evenes, and Andoya with chemical munitions.
On the southern flank, the Soviet Union did succeed in driving a corridor between Greece and Turkey. Initially, the United States had withdrawn the CVBGs from the eastern Mediterranean, but returned them as the front was stabilized to support an amphibious landing conducted to provide reinforcements to the NATO defenders in Thrace. While United States naval forces suffered some loses, the exchange ratio was in their favor.
In the Atlantic, the United States established and maintained submarines in barriers from Greenland to Norway for the purpose of SLOC protection. The Soviet Union sought to secure the SSBNs by placing them in “havens” at sea or under the ice in the north Norwegian and Barents. These Seas became an area of intense ASW conflict, with the United States doing well against the Soviet Union. Two CVBGs were sent into the North Sea to help slow the Soviet Union advance in the FRG.
In the Far East and the Pacific, the Soviet Union was on the political and military defensive. Soviet SSBNs were hidden in the northern Sea of Japan and in the Sea of Okhotsk. the United States concentrated on finding and destroying them as well as major Soviet surface combatants. While somewhat successful, the United States did incur heavy losses, particularly in the Sea of Okhotsk. United States CVBGs initially moved back into the central Pacific, a maneuver similar to that undertaken in the Mediterranean. They subsequently were moved forward to engage Soviet surface units. In the Indian Ocean, a Soviet combined forces attack severely damaged both United States carriers.
The United States adopted a forward, offensive strategy to sink the Soviet navy, and, though not without losses, it was successful. Soviet surface forces were virtually eliminated and the submarine component substantially depleted. However, the extent to which the United States anti-SSBN campaign altered the strategic nuclear balance was unknown and did not play a significant role in respective NCA/VGK discussions on nuclear weapons use. Regarding the ground war on the Central Front, while the United States was able to upset the Soviet Union timeline and deny the Soviet Union a quick victory, the Soviet Union was still able to occupy substantial portions of the FRG.
No nuclear weapons were used in the 1982 game, though the Soviet Union did make extensive use of chemicals, especially in north Norway and against Iceland. Heavy use of chemicals and the absence of any nuclear use was a factor that set this game apart from its predecessors, and was significant because of contemporary “real world” discussions on this very subject.
As the game progressed, the Soviet Union sought to negotiate a cease-fire and to terminate the war. However, as in previous games, the United States maintained the position that the territorial “status quo ante bellum” in Europe was prerequisite to any cease-fire. the Soviet Union refused to negotiate on this basis, and, at game’s end, it appeared that a long war was in prospect.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 27, 2016 12:59:44 GMT
Interesting. There was a strong pro-socialist/communist opposition to Khomeini coup that had resulted in a bloody terrorist type conflict with bomb attacks on government officials and targets and severe repression but that seemed to have lost support and largely dissipated once Iraq attacked, which had occurred by 1982 so I'm not sure of the basis for the Soviets to get such a strong presence in Iran after an assassination of Khomeini? Not to mention this is likely to make Sadam distinctly distant from the Soviets because of his hostility to Iran. Also it depends on what is meant by the channel ports but I would have thought even a planned advance into Belgium let lone to say Calais and Dunkirk would prevent French neutrality. This could indeed be a long war, with a continued danger of it becoming nuclear if the Soviets are unwilling to withdraw. Given their problems in Poland and possibly other areas in eastern Europe I could also see a chance of rebellion in some of the satellites, so things could become pretty hairy if that happened before a peace settlement was agreed.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 27, 2016 16:20:03 GMT
Interesting. There was a strong pro-socialist/communist opposition to Khomeini coup that had resulted in a bloody terrorist type conflict with bomb attacks on government officials and targets and severe repression but that seemed to have lost support and largely dissipated once Iraq attacked, which had occurred by 1982 so I'm not sure of the basis for the Soviets to get such a strong presence in Iran after an assassination of Khomeini? Not to mention this is likely to make Sadam distinctly distant from the Soviets because of his hostility to Iran. Also it depends on what is meant by the channel ports but I would have thought even a planned advance into Belgium let lone to say Calais and Dunkirk would prevent French neutrality. This could indeed be a long war, with a continued danger of it becoming nuclear if the Soviets are unwilling to withdraw. Given their problems in Poland and possibly other areas in eastern Europe I could also see a chance of rebellion in some of the satellites, so things could become pretty hairy if that happened before a peace settlement was agreed. Your are talking about Wargame - 1982 am i right, well with out him to lead the revolution those who wanted a democrat Iran might have a better change to fulfill it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 27, 2016 21:04:51 GMT
Interesting. There was a strong pro-socialist/communist opposition to Khomeini coup that had resulted in a bloody terrorist type conflict with bomb attacks on government officials and targets and severe repression but that seemed to have lost support and largely dissipated once Iraq attacked, which had occurred by 1982 so I'm not sure of the basis for the Soviets to get such a strong presence in Iran after an assassination of Khomeini? Not to mention this is likely to make Sadam distinctly distant from the Soviets because of his hostility to Iran. Also it depends on what is meant by the channel ports but I would have thought even a planned advance into Belgium let lone to say Calais and Dunkirk would prevent French neutrality. This could indeed be a long war, with a continued danger of it becoming nuclear if the Soviets are unwilling to withdraw. Given their problems in Poland and possibly other areas in eastern Europe I could also see a chance of rebellion in some of the satellites, so things could become pretty hairy if that happened before a peace settlement was agreed. Your are talking about Wargame - 1982 am i right, well with out him to lead the revolution those who wanted a democrat Iran might have a better change to fulfill it. Yes but I would assume that although set in 1985 its working from a base of 1982. By that time the war between Iran and Iraq had been ongoing for ~2 years and OTL lasted until 1988. As such I'm not sure what they assumed would have happened in the period 1982-85 and why by the latter date Iran is closely allied to the Soviets and there seems to be no mention of Iraq in the scenario? Sounds like they seem to be assuming that after Khomeini's death Iran went to the left and possibly also defeated Iraq, although with what effects is unclear. Steve |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 28, 2016 7:02:29 GMT
Your are talking about Wargame - 1982 am i right, well with out him to lead the revolution those who wanted a democrat Iran might have a better change to fulfill it. Yes but I would assume that although set in 1985 its working from a base of 1982. By that time the war between Iran and Iraq had been ongoing for ~2 years and OTL lasted until 1988. As such I'm not sure what they assumed would have happened in the period 1982-85 and why by the latter date Iran is closely allied to the Soviets and there seems to be no mention of Iraq in the scenario? Sounds like they seem to be assuming that after Khomeini's death Iran went to the left and possibly also defeated Iraq, although with what effects is unclear. Steve Well it was only 3 years after the Iran Revolution so the United States might think that with the Iran-Iraq War the people of Iran might get feed up with the Iranian Regime and become friends with the United States again. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 30, 2016 14:28:18 GMT
Wargame - 1983
The scenario for the 1983 Global War Game postulated a series of crises in geographically separated parts of the world. As in 1982, however, the focus remained central Europe and the deteriorating relationships between the Soviet Union and the satellites. One of the major Soviet Union problems lay in East Germany and Poland. Worker unrest escalated due to government crackdowns. Riots occurred, mobs attacked police headquarters and indigenous troops sent to suppress the incipient rebellion mutinied.
The Soviet Union, confused and taken by surprise, pulled troops back, leaving a power vacuum on the eastern side of the Inter German Border (IGB). With the insurrectionists in control in this area, talk of reunification became rampant and rumors of FRG military movement toward the east circulated.
Trends in the Middle East and Southwest Asia remained little changed from previous games of this series. Israel, nearly isolated politically due to continuing occupation of Lebanon, faced a possible invasion from Arab states led by Syria. The Soviet Union had been involved in a massive military buildup in Syria and had stationed combat troops there.
Although hostilities between Iran and Iraq had been terminated, the potential for instability in the Gulf remained high, as Iran maintained its policy of fostering Shiite agitation throughout the region.
In the Far East, major war was in progress in Southeast Asia. Vietnam had invaded Thailand, with success. In response, and after warning Hanoi of the consequences of continuing, the PRC launched an invasion of Laos and Vietnam. Although resistance was stiff, PRC troops were at the gates of Hanoi and Haiphong when GWG ’83 commenced.
Central Europe was the focus of Soviet concern, as events in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and Poland posed a threat to the Soviet “empire” and the Warsaw Pact that the Soviet Union could not tolerate. Circumstances, however, forced the Soviet Union to initiate hostilities before full mobilization had been achieved. Soviet Union military objectives, therefore, were the most limited of any game thus far. The goal, essentially, was to capture a significant amount of FRG territory and thereby lessen the United States influence on the Continent by demonstrating NATO’s inability to defend a powerful member of that alliance, and then to negotiate a permanent solution to the “German Problem.” While an offensive in North Norway was integral to the plan, the Soviet Union had no other offensive aspirations on D-Day. As in the previous year, the Soviet Union was anxious to avoid involvement in the Far East.
The United States sought to defend conventionally on the Central Front, to gain options from naval superiority gained through forward, aggressive attacks against all Soviet naval assets, and to shift the nuclear balance through an anti-SSBN campaign. The United States strategy to achieve maritime supremacy was more coordinated than in previous games, and a part of it involved amphibious landings in the Kuriles.
The Soviet offensive on the Central Front was hampered by the short time that had been allowed for mobilization. Once launched, progress was relatively slow and a stalemate developed. The Soviet Union sought negotiations almost from the outset, but the United States conditioned agreement to a cease-fire on restoration of the territorial “status quo ante-bellum” in Europe-terms unacceptable to the Soviet Union.
T he Soviet Union, for a variety of reasons, decided to escalate the war horizontally. One means was to induce North Korea to move south, an endeavor in which the Soviet Union was finally successful. The United States responded by supporting the ROK with forces previously detailed to the Kuriles invasion.
In Southwest Asia, the Soviet Union mounted an attack into Iran and toward the Gulf. This decision resulted from a number of complex factors, including failure to succeed with several political initiatives with Arab governments. The Soviet Union also reasoned that control of the region’s oil supplies could be used as leverage against the United States. The United States had no effective counter in Southwest Asia, as the CVBG in the eastern Mediterranean had been moved west to augment United States TACAIR on the Central Front.
For the first time in the global series, the Soviet Union responded to United States e strikes on airfields in the homeland with attacks on North America. The Soviet Union lost over 20 bombers while knocking out two distant early warning (DEW) line sites and damaging an SSBN installation in Washington State. The Soviet Union also employed anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons to destroy the United States navigational space-based assets. The United States replied with Tomahawk land attack missile conventional (TLAM-C) strikes against Soviet Union launch facilities.
Consistent with previous games, the United States launched an offensive against the Soviet Union SSBN force. The effort was relatively successful, sinking about half of that force by game end.
Neither nuclear nor chemical weapons were used in GWG-83. Although nuclear use was discussed by both NCA/VGK, Red saw no need for them and the United States could not find any employment that would be beneficial.
The 1983 Global War Game saw further development of the concept of prolonged, conventional war. When the game ended at D+30, the prospect was for continued hostilities as the stalemate on the Central Front had the potential to continue well into the future. In this connection, GWG-83 incorporated, for the first time, an economics panel to evaluate industrial/mobilization issues pertinent to general war. There was considerable activity on the diplomatic level, but negotiations foundered over the Soviet Union demands to retain its Central Front gains and the United States insistence on return to the territorial “status quo ante.”
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2018 20:00:49 GMT
Wargame - 1984
Scenario
In the German Democratic Republic (GDR), similar discontent was augmented by a strong peace movement. In July 1990, harsh repressive measures on the part of the government intensified the opposition. During the third week of that month, security forces opened fire on mass demonstrations, and 20 protesters were reported killed. Attacks on Communist Party headquarters followed in five cities, and troops sent to restore order were met with barricades. Skirmishes between government forces and dissidents continued, and by the end of July, some GDR military units had mutinied. As mobs began to gather in areas where Red troop garrisons were present, those forces began to pull back to the east. By the end of July, the western GDR was in the hands of the pro-Western rebels, while the eastern part of the country was in the hands of the loyal East German and Soviet forces. The rebels in the west began to set up democratic city councils and were in contact with both the press and officials of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). As August began, the GDR insurgents resisted all efforts to restore order, and some utilized the FRG as a haven from which to conduct minor but violent attacks into the GDR. The FRG had mobilized selected military units to maintain order at the InterGerman Border (IGB) on 30 July. On 1 August (D-12), the Politburo, gravely concerned about the continued deterioration of stability in the GDR, mobilized ground, air, and naval forces to restore the IGB and the East German government by conventional military action. United states mobilized five days later (D-7). Although neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had desired war, circumstances beyond the control of both precipitated a situation in which neither believed an alternative existed.
War Begins
The war began on 16 August 1990 with a major Warsaw Pact (WP) offensive against NATO forces. The primary weight of the Soviet attack was in the Northern Army Group (NORTHAG) sector, and the advance carried 50 kilometers in the first two days and 70 in the first three. NATO forces attempted a counterattack against this penetration on D+4, striking northeast from the Fulda area to try to turn the southern flank of the Red salient. NATO air was surged in support of this offensive, and while it did serve to divert some WP reinforcements, the advance across the north German Plain continued and this limited counterattack was withdrawn on D+6. NATO reserves and air power, including the use of B-52s, blunted the Red advance by D+7. In NORTHAG, the forward line of troops (FLOT) was in the outskirts of Hamburg and Hanover on D+10 when the Red Second Operational Echelon closed.
The Soviet buildup and consolidation continued on D+11, and two Polish armies pushed into Schleswig-Holstein, cutting off Denmark from the rest of NATO. The Warsaw Pact offensive in NORTHAG resumed on D+12. Soviet staged an airborne attack on Bremerhaven as part of this renewed drive that soon carried across the Elbe. Bremerhaven fell on D+13, while, to the south, Soviet commenced a thrust toward Munich. That city fell, along with Augsburg, on D+15, and the Soviet advance continued on toward Stuttgart. In NORTHAG, NATO had formed and was holding, with the aid of massive air support, a new defensive line anchored on the Weser River. At D+19, relative combat power in NORTHAG was about even, and to the south, NATO reinforcements caused the Soviets to hold up the advance on Stuttgart.
By D+20, however the United states was confronted with two major problems on the Central Front. First, the Soviet Second Strategic Echelon had closed and begun a strong attack that threatened Frankfurt. Second, Soviet units had reinforced the Polish forces in Jutland and renewed the offensive into Denmark. The political ramifications of the fall of a NATO member were such that the Alliance decided on an amphibious operation that went ashore on the western side of the Danish peninsula on D+22. A marine amphibious force (MAF) and one army division, supported by five aircraft carriers (CV) and about 250 other ships, were augmented by an assault by the 82nd Airborne Division. The Weser line continued to hold, while, to the south, a second defensive belt contained the Soviet thrust on Frankfurt, although the city was within range of Soviet divisional artillery. On D+23 this attack had been spent, and Red terminated offensive operations to await developments.
NATO seized the initiative with a six-division offensive toward Hamburg, which, if successful, would force the withdrawal of the Warsaw Pact forces in Jutland that were opposing the United States beachhead. The 101st Airborne Division had been added to the original force, but a breakout had not been achieved. This attack was to be followed by a three-phase NATO counterattack.
- Allied Forces Central Europe (AFCENT) was to launch 13 French divisions between Kassel and Fulda toward Halle, to rupture Red LOCs and form a southern pincer to cut off WP forces in North Germany.
- NORTHAG to attack in the direction of Magdeburg, forcing a breach south of Hamburg, to form the northern pincer.
- AFCENT was also to attack toward the Oder River, with objective and direction to be determined based on the deployment of the Red Third Strategic Echelon.
Phases one and two commenced on D+26 with the French forces breaking through and advancing to the northeast, while the NORTHAG units moved against light opposition. In conjunction with these attacks, Rangers were employed in a deep penetration mission against airfields in the Berlin area. Meanwhile the soviets where moving up reinforcements composed of nine divisions from the Leningrad military district (MD) and 25 from the Kiev and Caucasus MDs. By D+29, the French southern pincer had linked up in Halle with two airborne divisions that had taken the city on D+27. However, the northern arm of the pincer was held up at Luneburg by stiffening Soviet resistance. The Jutland beachhead was stable, but efforts at breaking out had failed. The third phase of the NATO counteroffensive began on D+29 in the direction of Brunswick (Braunschweig) for the purpose of supporting the north shoulder of the French salient. However, Central Army Group (CENTAG) was becoming concerned over increasing Soviet pressure on the French in the vicinity of Mannheim.
D+30 found the NATO counteroffensives continuing in the face of strong Soviet opposition occasioned by the more rapid than expected arrival of the Third Strategic Echelon. The French drove on beyond Halle toward Magdeburg and Leipzig and, supported on their left by the CENTAG forces moving on Brunswick, crossed the inter-German border (IGB) into East Germany. However, the open right flank of the French penetration was coming under increasing pressure. To the north, the check at Luneburg led NORTHAG to redefine objectives, and the northern pincer swung south on an axis Uelzen/Wolfsburg. In south Germany, the Soviet offensive toward Stuttgart was resumed, and NATO forces were suffering heavy casualties. By D+33, the NATO offensive operations reached their limit with a link-up of the two pincers at Celle. Mounting Soviet pressure, however, forced the withdrawal of the forces involved in all three phases on D+34/35. This counterattack, however, had thrown the Soviets off the timeline and necessitated diversion of forces destined for Norway and the Balkans, leaving the Soviets vulnerable in both regions.
By D+35/36, the 34 divisions of the Third Strategic Echelon had restored the initiative to the Soviets, and D+37/38 found NATO on the defensive on all fronts. The first of the Army Reserve and National Guard units from the Continental United States (CONUS) arrived in theater on D+38 and were immediately pressed into action to hold three Warsaw Pact offensives aimed at Bremen, Frankfurt, and Stuttgart. The United States contingent in Jutland remained confined to their beachhead.
Norway
Soviet attacked Norway on D-Day, moving across the Finnmark with two motorized rifle divisions (MRD) and conducting an amphibious landing of a Soviet naval infantry (SNI) regiment in Porsangen Fjord. The airfield at Banak was captured, and four Norwegian early warning posts were closed. The Soviet advance continued toward the Skibotn valley, slowed both by bad weather and strong resistance of combined United States, Norwegian, and UK forces. The United States components—a Marine Amphibious Brigade (MAB) and Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS)—had arrived in Norway between D-9 and D-7. NATO Improved Hawk batteries and tactical air forces were able to effectively counter Red air, and United states air strikes helped force the Soviets to go over to the defensive at Alta, short of their Skibotn objective.
Balkans
After the initial “shootout” in the Mediterranean, United States naval forces were well positioned. With the exception of a few submarines and numerous mines, there were few Soviet forces left to oppose United States, and the swiftness and completeness of the United States victory had cowed Soviet surrogates into neutrality. Further, Soviet Naval Aviation and LongRange Aviation (SNA/LRA), bereft of targeting information, chose not to commit to offensive action after D-Day. This left NATO forces free to launch a massive tactical air campaign into Bulgaria to delay or disrupt any plans Soviet might have for invading Thrace. This campaign essentially destroyed Soviet combat air patrol (CAP) capability in the area, slowed the Soviet buildup for an invasion of Thrace, and laid the basis for the NATO offensive of D+47. This attack involved six Greek/Turkish divisions backed by two United States army divisions and a MAB. Red responded by shifting two divisions from Hungary.
The Atlantic
The Soviet Union moves toward war became evident during the prehostility period, on D-15, 80 percent of Soviet submarine and maritime combatants sortied and the Black Sea Fleet surged. Between that date and D-10, Warsaw Pact fleets in the Baltic also left port. NATO took prompt advantage of this warning, and by D-Day had 16 SSNs on station in the Norwegian, Kara, and Barents Seas. United States also deployed other forces to areas of potential conflict as a show of force. The America, Saratoga, and Wisconsin Battle Groups were tasked to cover Cuba, the Roosevelt, Coral Sea, and Lincoln Battle Groups moved to positions south of the Iceland–United Kingdom Gap and the Independence steamed to join the Sixth Fleet. Between D-10 and D-5, United States marines arrived in Norway, 10 guided missile frigates (FFG) were put on Eastern Atlantic (EASTLANT) patrol, and Western Atlantic (WESTLANT) amphibious ships, including the Nassau and Guam, were ordered to load out and proceed to the UK. Because of these actions, D-Day found United States naval forces well disposed, with SSNs forward, three CVBGs just south of the Greenland-Iceland-Norway (GIN) Gap, and three others off the UK. FFGs supported by Ocean Surveillance (T-AGOS) ships had assumed ASW positions, the four Yankees in the Atlantic were being tailed, and two converted SSBNs were on station to lay CapTor minefields in the Barents. Protective minefields were in place off the United States coast. At D-4, five Norwegian patrol submarines (SS) formed a barrier off the North Cape and the French SSN/SSBNs were in safe haven in the Bay of Biscay
When hostilities commenced, the converted SSBNs laid a 96-unit CapTor field in the Barents and Mk-57 fields along expected Red SSN/SSBN transit routes. The Shetlands and Faeroes were also mined, utilizing surface, subsurface, and air platforms. These operations used 290 mines or 80 percent of assets. The Yankees in the Atlantic were promptly sunk, two by SSNs and two by maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). In the Norwegian, Barents, and Kara Seas, United States navy SSNs sought targets in the following priorities: SSBNs, SSNs, and surface ASW platforms. During the first week of the war the United states navy sank 7 Red SSBNs, 24 SSNs, 2 SSs and nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs), the only operational CV, and one Kiev, with another Kiev so badly damaged as to be out of action. During this period, the United States lost ten SSNs.
On D-Day, United States surface forces moved initially to sink Soviet AGIs and then to support ASW operations. Intensive air operations were conducted north of the GIN Gap coordinated with surface forces. One CV was moved close to southern Norway to support the land campaign, if necessary. Soviet sabotage of the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) in Norway hampered the ASW effort, but the capabilities of thin line arrays and the SQR-19 compensated. Aside from operations in support of the amphibious operations in Jutland and an abortive Red anti-SLOC campaign, the naval war proceeded with Red forces suffering heavy attrition. By D+48, surviving Red naval units had been driven into ports of safety, and, while this remnant did constitute a fleet in being, only one Oscar-class SSGN remained at sea.
At D+30, Soviets, sensing the probability of a longer war, embarked on an anti-SLOC campaign. Fourteen SSN/SSGNs were sortied via the Kara Sea, North Spitsbergen, and the Denmark Strait. United States was caught unprepared, and the Soviets was not detected until exiting the Denmark Strait. Of the 14 boats involved, all were sunk by D+40, two by the CapTor minefield in the Denmark Strait, eight by United States navy SSN, and four by maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). They did, however, sink one SL-7, four Ro/Ro (fast), and four Ro/ Ro (slow) transports.
At D+22, United states forces conducted an amphibious landing near the FRG-Danish border on the western side of the Jutland Peninsula to prevent that NATO member from being totally occupied by Warsaw Pact forces. Five CVs and 250 other ships were involved in landing a Marine Amphibious Force (MAF), MPS equipment, and one infantry division. The 82nd Airborne was also utilized, and the 101st Airborne put ashore later. The amphibious fleet and supporting ships were attacked by five regiments of Backfires. The attack initially concentrated on the amphibious ships and resulted in a loss of about 25 percent of available ground strength
Following the landing, United States maintained substantial CV assets in the North Sea to provide tactical air support to NORTHAG in general and the Jutland beachhead in particular. This concentration attracted the attention of Soviet and resulted in the SS/SSGN attacks noted above. While the United States forces were still pinned in their beachhead it had prevented the Soviets Union from knocking Denmark out of either the war or the NATO Alliance, and Soviet forces that might have been employed elsewhere to NATO disadvantage had to be diverted to Denmark.
The Mediterranean and Southwestern
TVD Soviet actions prior to D-Day involved Spetsnaz operations and covert minelaying. Beginning at D-12, Soviet began the insertion of Spetsnaz teams to sabotage nuclear storage sites, nuclear attack–capable airfields, and command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I), in that order of priority. Also prior to D-Day, Soviet sortied eight Ro/Ro ships with an estimated 1,000 mines per ship. One was assigned the Straits of Sicily and Messina, another the Suez Canal, and the other six to the Aegean. The ship assigned to the Suez was detected on D-2 and sunk in the Canal, blocking it. A Foxtrot laid 12 mines in Souda Bay and a Tango laid 12 more in Augusta Bay on D-2, neither being detected.
On D-Day, United States promptly destroyed Soviet AGIs and other tattletales as the expected “shoot-out” began. The Soviet Mediterranean Squadron (SOVMEDRON) ships and submarines struck two Sixth Fleet CVBGs in the vicinity of Rhodes, sinking three ships but leaving the CVs undamaged. The Sovie forces were essentially destroyed, incapacitated or forced into ports of Red surrogates. Soviets also launched an SNA/LRA attack with three regiments of Black Sea Fleet (BLKSEAFLT) Backfire and one regiment of Blinders. Red prepared for this attack with SS-22 attacks on six Turkish airfields, and only four Backfires and six Blinders were shot down over Turkey. The attack against Sixth Fleet was made with AS-4s; no CVs were damaged, and the Sovietslost 36 Backfires and nine Blinders. Blinders also hit the airfield at Souda Bay, cutting the runway for three days. These attacks were the last air attacks launched against Sixth Fleet, as the Soviets did not wish to risk assets without targeting intelligence.
By D+25, NATO had completed mine-clearing operations in the Mediterranean, interred 89 of an estimated 250 Warsaw Pact merchant ships in the area when hostilities commenced, and forced the others into ports in Libya, Morocco, and Syria. The three CVBGs now present, Independence, John F. Kennedy, and Eisenhower, became involved in a successful air campaign against Soviet air assets and other targets in Bulgaria. A number of Tomahawk land-attack missile (conventional) (TLAM(C)) attacks were launched, the most notable being a strike on a new CV and a Slava fitting out at Nikolayev, based on intelligence obtained from a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV). An effort was also made to insert four SSNs into the Black Sea, but two were sunk and one damaged by minefields.
The Far East
While previous Global War Games had found Red essentially passive in the Pacific Theater, it seized the initiative in 1984. Perceiving that it would be unable through diplomatic pressure and military threat to keep Japan neutral, Red launched a large-scale air attack on Blue/Japanese air defense assets, using both aircraft and SS-22s. These attacks were so successful that Japan was left with essentially no air defense capability. An example of this effectiveness was the D+2 attack on airfields at Chitose and Misawa, which put both out of action for 48 hours and destroyed 85 percent of their POL supplies. Red also struck at Blue targets throughout the Pacific. Adak, Shemya, and Amchitka were hit on D+1, 2, and 5. Further, key installations in Guam and Hawaii were attacked by Red unconventional warfare forces, which were also employed against Japan. These included high frequency direction finder (HFDF) sites and a super-high-frequency (SHF) station. Diego Garcia was also bombed and put out of action for three days, with 50 percent of all POL, hangars, and port facilities destroyed. These “worldwide” strikes were conducted not because Red sought to expand the war, but because Soviet reckoned it could not tolerate potential threats to its flanks and wanted to preempt them to the extent possible. Soviet attempted to accomplish the same goal by offering bilateral treaties of nonbelligerency
Soviet navy had flushed a large number of SSN/SSGN to the east of Hokkaido and the Kuriles prior to D-Day for anti-CVBG operations. The remainder of the Soviet navy was retained in the Seas of Japan and Okhotsk.
United States, acting on warning given by Red deployments, surged SSNs prior to hostilities to be in a position to wage intensive ASW campaigns in the Bering Sea and the Seas of Japan and Okhotsk. Initial Soviet SSBN losses were heavy, but ceased after D+16 as Soviet drew the remaining assets back into the well-protected shallow water bastions in the northern Sea of Okhotsk. A United States USN/USAF attack destroyed Soviet bombers, sank several small combatants, and damaged repair facilities at Cam Ranh Bay.
There was a small-scale “shoot-out” in the Indian Ocean, where the Kitty Hawk battle group was en route to join the other Pacific Fleet CVBGs in the vicinity of the Philippines. A Charlie-class SSGN attacked the Kitty Hawk, but its missiles were shot down by an escorting Aegis cruiser, and the Charlie was sunk by the support SSN. This CVBG also sank a Krivak by air-launched Harpoon and destroyed an AGI (auxiliary vessel general intelligence purposes) with gunfire. A Kara and another Krivak were dispatched in the Arabian Sea by air-launched Harpoon shortly after D-Day. Although these actions were the only major ones to take place in the Indian Ocean the Soviet Union did its best to harass United states/NATO/Japan energy supplies. Periodic bombing raids were undertaken against oil production facilities; Ras Tanurah was heavily bombed, and a desultory anti-SLOC campaign in the Indian Ocean claimed 12 super tankers. However, the Middle East in general and the energy situation in particular never became a major concern to United States.
The United states navy held six CVBGs, including the Kitty Hawk, in the Philippine Sea during the early days of the war, awaiting the destruction of Soviet submarines in the waters east of Hokkaido and the Kuriles. This positioning of the CVBGs, combined with a protracted period of extremely bad weather, which hampered United states air operations, provided the Soviets with a “window” to invade Hokkaido. On D+11, Soviets initiated a large amphibious assault led by two SNI regiments followed by motorized infantry units transported in Ro/Ro ships. Eighteen amphibious and merchant ships were lost in this assault, and both Kievs in the Red Pacific Fleet sustained severe damage. However, the Soviet Union forces did get ashore and established two large salients, one on the Wakkanai peninsula and the other in the Sapporo area. Noting Soviet Red success, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) commenced mobilization and invaded South Korea on D+15
As the weather cleared and United States antisubmarine operations proceeded, the CVBGs were able to move north and pound the Red forces ashore on Hokkaido. By D+30, the five divisions of Soviet troops then ashore were unable to make further progress and a decision was made to withdraw them, which was accomplished on D+32/33. Partially to cover this withdrawal, Soviet launched a massive air attack on the United States navy CVBGs force operating southeast of Tokyo. Soviet Union lost 182 planes in a raid that included Backfire, Badger, Bear, Foxhound, Fulcrum, Flanker, and Fencer. United states lost 101 aircraft; several escorts and auxiliaries were sunk; Lincoln and Midway, heavily damaged, were towed to Japanese yards for repair
United States planned to continue the Pacific war by invading the southern Kurile island of Kunashir, with follow-on landings to take place on Simushir and Iturup. This decision was taken in spite of urgent pleas from the Republic of Korea (ROK), which, while holding its own against the North Korean invasion, wanted the CVBGs to provide additional air support. As United States naval forces maneuvered for the attack on Kunashir, Soviets launched another massive air attack on the CVBGs, now positioned east of Hokkaido. The Ranger sustained six hits, was on fire and dead in the water. The estimated time of repair (ETR) was 10 months; seven escorts were also sunk. United states bombing of the Kuriles, including a number of B-52 strikes, appeared to have neutralized any military utility the islands might have had for Red. With the Soviet Union threatening to place atomic demolition mines (ADM) on the islands, United states and Japan seemed to independently reach the conclusion that there was no military necessity to invade.
The situation on the Korean peninsula had become stalemated. Initial DPRK success in the East had been blunted by a South Korean counterattack, and Seoul remained in ROK possession. Little change had occurred since D+40 or so, and the United states continued to refuse ROK requests for CVBG support, however, the Soviet Union had agreed to provide MiG-21s to Pyongyang, which appeared to threaten a shift of air superiority to the north.
The PRC had mobilized early in the war, but had taken no aggressive action against the Soviets. Nonetheless, the Soviets had felt it necessary to maintain its regular defensive deployments against possible contingencies, and had not drawn down its forces employed for that purpose.
Although these were the events of principal importance in the Pacific, there were ongoing submarine operations against Soviet forces that put to sea. Further, both the United States air force and naval air assets attacked the Belkin coast, and TLAM(C) missiles were utilized in attacks on Vladivostok and Sakhalin.
|
|
