Tom Clancy is back.....

[David E. Powell]

"Locked On" by Tom Clancy.

Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
politics again.

Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
friend, John Clark.

http://tomclancy.com/ has more information.

[Ray O'Hara]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cb651111-6923-406e...@f13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

Clancy had lost his fastball and his last few books were nothing more than
rightwing anti-tax screed .
when Clancy just wroye techno-thillerrs he was great, when he drifted into
politics he sucked.

[David E. Powell]

On Oct 24, 4:12 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:cb651111-6923-406e...@f13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

>
> > "Locked On" by Tom Clancy.
>
> > Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
> > politics again.
>
> > Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
> > friend, John Clark.
>

> >http://tomclancy.com/has more information.

>
> Clancy had lost his fastball and his last few books were nothing more than
> rightwing anti-tax screed .
> when Clancy just wroye techno-thillerrs he was great, when he drifted into
> politics he sucked.

Dear or Alive was pretty darn good. Also a great look on planned
operations vs. going on the fly. (How that can bite you.)

[Kurt Ullman]

In article
<cb651111-6923-406e...@f13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

He did nothing for a long while and now 3 (big) books in around a year.
Are these all his or just apostrophe books on steroids.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

[Dan]

I took a disliking to Clancy in the 1980s. I realize his books are
fiction, but he mentions some special ops activities with which I was
involved and got it wrong. I thought then, and still do, that he likes
to drop names and look cool. When he started being called as an "expert"
on military television shows I started changing channels.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Did he not drop names to the point he was investigted ?

[Daryl]

I would answer that but I think I just saw Cobb circling my house
in a black UFO Chopper.

>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Paul F Austin]

On 10/24/2011 4:36 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article
> <cb651111-6923-406e...@f13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> "David E. Powell"<David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> "Locked On" by Tom Clancy.
>>
>> Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
>> politics again.
>>
>> Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
>> friend, John Clark.
>>
>> http://tomclancy.com/ has more information.
>
> He did nothing for a long while and now 3 (big) books in around a year.
> Are these all his or just apostrophe books on steroids.
>

I do like Clancy and the Ryan franchise has until the last three
books, been pure Clancy. Dead or Alive appeared to be Blackwood writing
to Clancy's outline and Blackwood wasn't up to it, making many blatant
errors. I hope Locked on is better but we'll see. If these books become
Clancy Inc books, then Locked On is probably the last for me.

[David E. Powell]

On Oct 24, 4:36 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <cb651111-6923-406e-bf4f-04c1b36f6...@f13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

>  "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Locked On" by Tom Clancy.
>
> > Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
> > politics again.
>
> > Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
> > friend, John Clark.
>

> >http://tomclancy.com/has more information.

>
> He did nothing for a long while and now 3 (big) books in around a year.
> Are these all his or just apostrophe books on steroids.

Both this and Dead or Alive are "Tom Clancy - With (some other dude)"
books. That said, DOA was pretty good and the chapters of this one
that are online were pretty well done too, at least in my opinion.

DOA is "With Grant Blackwood."
Locked On is "With Mark Greaney."

[vaughn]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:74fe0b3f-d6c2-4e84...@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

>Both this and Dead or Alive are "Tom Clancy - With (some other dude)"

The name (usually printed in small letters) that comes after the word "With" is
the poor dude who actually wrote the book. I universally distain all "With"
books. If an author hasn't got time to actually write his books, I don't have
time to read them.

Vaughn

[Killfile Victim #847238]

On Oct 24, 4:05 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:

I quit Clancy after 'Tail of the Tiger', aka 'Jack Ryan: TNG'. Sucked
a whole pile of smashed assholes.

[Dennis]

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Dan > wrote:
>
>> I took a disliking to Clancy in the 1980s. I realize his books are
>> fiction, but he mentions some special ops activities with which I was
>> involved and got it wrong.
>

> Um, he's not writing a documentary.
>
> In fact, one could argue that it's GOOD he got it wrong.
>
> Regardless, he's writing entertainment. Let it go.

Indeed!

ISTR that's why the military gave him a pass, as well as some info. They
realized he was good for business.

I must note, though. When I read his WWIII scenario, 'Red Storn Rising', I
compared it to the NATO generals' version, 'The Third World War' and its
sequel. Not only was Clancey's storytelling vastly better - but his
scenario seemed a whole lot more realistic than the NATO generals!!!!!
Scary, that!

Dennis

[Ray O'Hara]

"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9F88D990DFEB9ts...@130.133.4.11...

I assume you mean Sir John Hackett and the point of his book was to scare
politicians into more spending on weapons.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message
news:j84pol$p0i$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 10/24/2011 4:32 PM, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2011 3:05 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
>>>> "Locked On" by Tom Clancy.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
>>>> politics again.
>>>>
>>>> Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
>>>> friend, John Clark.
>>>>
>>>> http://tomclancy.com/ has more information.
>>>
>>> I took a disliking to Clancy in the 1980s. I realize his books are
>>> fiction, but he mentions some special ops activities with which I was
>>> involved and got it wrong. I thought then, and still do, that he likes
>>> to drop names and look cool. When he started being called as an
>>> "expert" on military television shows I started changing channels.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Did he not drop names to the point he was investigted ?
>
> I would answer that but I think I just saw Cobb circling my house in a
> black UFO Chopper.
>
>

Black helicopters are usually navy blue and they have nothing to do with
UFOs.
where are "Black Helicopters" usually seen, hmmm at Waco and at Ruby Ridge,
who was attacking at those places? the Feds, the FBI and the ATF but not the
NWO.
I don't know who is dumber, those who think someone nefarious or those who
think the federal government doesn't use helicopters when conducting an
operation.

[David E. Powell]

On Oct 24, 6:32 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On 10/24/2011 3:05 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
> >> "Locked On" by Tom Clancy.
>
> >> Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
> >> politics again.
>
> >> Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
> >> friend, John Clark.
>

> >>http://tomclancy.com/has more information.

>
> >  I took a disliking to Clancy in the 1980s. I realize his books are
> > fiction, but he mentions some special ops activities with which I was
> > involved and got it wrong. I thought then, and still do, that he likes
> > to drop names and look cool. When he started being called as an
> > "expert" on military television shows I started changing channels.
>
> Did he not drop names to the point he was investigted ?

When he wrote "The Hunt For Red October" a few people from certain
service branches did stop by to ask him where he got some of his
information. He was able to point to publically released stuff that
covered it, and in some other case point where he took a few
publically available sources and guessed or "guesstimated" the rest to
fill in the gaps.

Clancy has also mentioned that he has changed some facts or "step by
step" stuff to protect identities and keep a reader from getting the
whole recipe on how to make a bomb, for instance.

[Dennis]

Ray O'Hara wrote:

>> I must note, though. When I read his WWIII scenario, 'Red Storn
>> Rising', I
>> compared it to the NATO generals' version, 'The Third World War' and
>> its sequel. Not only was Clancey's storytelling vastly better - but
>> his scenario seemed a whole lot more realistic than the NATO
>> generals!!!!! Scary, that!
>

> I assume you mean Sir John Hackett and the point of his book was to
> scare politicians into more spending on weapons.

Yes, though Clancey's book could just as well have served the same purpose.
It was a very near thing in his book too.

Dennis

[Dennis]

David E. Powell wrote:

> When he wrote "The Hunt For Red October" a few people from certain
> service branches did stop by to ask him where he got some of his
> information. He was able to point to publically released stuff that
> covered it, and in some other case point where he took a few
> publically available sources and guessed or "guesstimated" the rest to
> fill in the gaps.
>
> Clancy has also mentioned that he has changed some facts or "step by
> step" stuff to protect identities and keep a reader from getting the
> whole recipe on how to make a bomb, for instance.

I suspect a lot of the folks here could have done the techie parts of it,
as far as that goes. The storytelling remains his.

Dennis

[Daryl]

Once again, you confirmed something. The regulars in here
understand what I typed. You didn't.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Maybe he can still save himself and become a liberarian, maybe write
some good anarcho-capitalist thrillers for a change!
Yeah :-)
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Aunkai

[Kerryn Offord]

On 10/25/2011 11:44 AM, Daryl wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 4:32 PM, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2011 3:05 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
>>>> "Locked On" by Tom Clancy.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
>>>> politics again.
>>>>
>>>> Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
>>>> friend, John Clark.
>>>>
>>>> http://tomclancy.com/ has more information.
>>>
>>> I took a disliking to Clancy in the 1980s. I realize his books are
>>> fiction, but he mentions some special ops activities with which I was
>>> involved and got it wrong. I thought then, and still do, that he likes
>>> to drop names and look cool. When he started being called as an
>>> "expert" on military television shows I started changing channels.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Did he not drop names to the point he was investigted ?
>
> I would answer that but I think I just saw Cobb circling my house in a
> black UFO Chopper.
>

If you can identify it as a chopper (black or otherwise) then it's not
an UFO

[William Black]

The point about Hackett's book is that it presented World War II in an
utterly conventional way and assumed, and it's a reasonable assumption,
that the war would be a land war with only the European theatre being
of any importance.

Clancy is a gadget freak.

He doesn't actually care that much about a large mechanised war over a
reasonable large part of E,
rope

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[Ray O'Hara]

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-534CD7....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article
> <690a18e4-1b1b-4339...@v8g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

> wow, you didn't cut him even ONE break for that one--knowing about his
> health issues and all--and go back to the library to check out DOA?
>
> You're harsh.


Clancy when he became famous did what many just became rich and famous men
do.
he dumped the frumpy old wife for a young trophy wife and in the ensuing
divorse he got hammered. so he needed money to maintain his new lifestyle
and keep the gold digger so he started churning out product of lesser
quality and he also sold his name to several series he had little to do
with.

[David E. Powell]

On Oct 25, 1:39 am, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@coda.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message

> >news:cb651111-6923-406e...@f13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> >> "Locked On" by Tom Clancy.
>
> >> Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
> >> politics again.
>
> >> Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
> >> friend, John Clark.
>

> >>http://tomclancy.com/has more information.

>
> > Clancy had lost his fastball and his last few books were nothing more than
> > rightwing anti-tax screed .
> > when Clancy just wroye techno-thillerrs he was great, when he drifted into
> > politics he sucked.
>
> Maybe he can still save himself and become a liberarian, maybe write
> some good anarcho-capitalist thrillers for a change!
> Yeah :-)

Some of his latest stuff has been close to that, a privately funded
intelligence and counterintelligence agency that goes after terrorists
and other malicious individuals that the gov't can't because of rules.

Not sure that is individualism a la Ayn Rand but the individual out
for themselves who wishes other people well or just stays out of
others' business has been treated well by Clancy in several of his
characters.

> --
> Gernot Hassenpflug
> Aunkai

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Thank's David, that's sorta what I remembered, I couldn't recall if he was
actually questioned, or just raised a few eyebrows.

cheers.....Jeff

[Richard]

On Oct 25, 10:55 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> In article <j86g6k$4f...@dont-email.me>,

>  "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Clancy when he became famous did what many just became rich and famous men
> > do.
> > he dumped the frumpy old wife for a young trophy wife and in the ensuing
> > divorse he got hammered.
>

> Yeah, now that you bring that up, I've always wondered about the details
> (primarly because of how he was forced to write R6).  Are those spelled
> out anywhere?

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20125539,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/27/style/alexandra-llewellyn-tom-clancy.html:http:/www.nytimes.com/1999/06/27/style/alexandra-llewellyn-tom-clancy.html

[Kurt Ullman]

In article
<bb37db9d-36f6-414c...@11g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <the.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/27/style/alexandra-llewellyn-tom-clancy.html

The NYT is one of the few papers that can make a wedding announcement
read like an obituary.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 25/10/2011 05:21, Ray O'Hara ha scritto:

> I assume you mean Sir John Hackett and the point of his book was to scare
> politicians into more spending on weapons.

well, I guess that many Americans was scared of his ideas on the
handling of the post-war, exactly the opposite of the last 20 years, a
strong welfare & socialdemocratic state up to endorsing the idea of the
"citizen's income", that is, a negative tax percentage for the lowest
income citizens (that is, the state giving money instead of taking money...)

With hindsight, I can say that he has correctly assessed the dangers of
an unrestrained turbo-capitalism unchecked by the disappareance of the
counterbalance from the sovietism.

...and he wasn't definitively an "old Labour" bloke....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[David E. Powell]

On Oct 25, 3:13 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <bb37db9d-36f6-414c-af4e-ab85f1b00...@11g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  Richard <the.sar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/27/style/alexandra-llewellyn-tom-clanc...

>
> The NYT is one of the few papers that can make a wedding announcement
> read like an obituary.

Good point, it's like you want to send a condolence card when you're
halfway in....

[David E. Powell]

Actually, western governments seem to have overspent like mad, while
regulating jobs out of their own nations.

In the U.S. Politicians regularly say they will punish companies for
sending U.S. jobs overseas by raising their taxes and costs, which
hurts those that still produce here and exempts ones that have
transferred production, tech support and other stuff offshore.

[Dennis]

William Black wrote:

>>> I must note, though. When I read his WWIII scenario, 'Red Storn
>>> Rising', I
>>> compared it to the NATO generals' version, 'The Third World War' and
>>> its sequel. Not only was Clancey's storytelling vastly better - but
>>> his scenario seemed a whole lot more realistic than the NATO
>>> generals!!!!! Scary, that!
>>

>> I assume you mean Sir John Hackett and the point of his book was to
>> scare politicians into more spending on weapons.
>
> The point about Hackett's book is that it presented World War II in an
> utterly conventional way and assumed, and it's a reasonable
> assumption,
> that the war would be a land war with only the European theatre
> being
> of any importance.
>
> Clancy is a gadget freak.
>
> He doesn't actually care that much about a large mechanised war over a
> reasonable large part of E, rope

My point was, Hacket & co. presented the war as being a quick, failed
blitzkrieg, a steady, fast counterattack, and then it starts to go nuclear.
Pretty much like the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

OTOH Clancey foresees its settling into t prolonged stalemate - which
seemed a lot more realistic! Remember WWI and WWII vs. predictions for
them.

Dennis

[Dennis]

I missed that part of it! He wrote it during the Carter Presidency, when
he feared US and NATO complacency.

Dennis

[Dennis]

Ray O'Hara wrote:

> Clancy when he became famous did what many just became rich and
> famous men
> do.
> he dumped the frumpy old wife for a young trophy wife

In fact, I remember reading how the (frumpy old) wife had been quite a
support and hold on sanity for him.

You never know. Sometimes the frumpy old wife is the reason for the
success, sometimes she deserves to be dumped. I've seen examples of both.

[William Black]

On 25/10/11 20:55, Dennis wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
>>>> I must note, though. When I read his WWIII scenario, 'Red Storn
>>>> Rising', I
>>>> compared it to the NATO generals' version, 'The Third World War' and
>>>> its sequel. Not only was Clancey's storytelling vastly better - but
>>>> his scenario seemed a whole lot more realistic than the NATO
>>>> generals!!!!! Scary, that!
>>>
>>> I assume you mean Sir John Hackett and the point of his book was to
>>> scare politicians into more spending on weapons.
>>
>> The point about Hackett's book is that it presented World War II in an
>> utterly conventional way and assumed, and it's a reasonable
>> assumption,
>> that the war would be a land war with only the European theatre
>> being
>> of any importance.
>>
>> Clancy is a gadget freak.
>>
>> He doesn't actually care that much about a large mechanised war over a
>> reasonable large part of E, rope
>

> My point was, Hacket& co. presented the war as being a quick, failed

> blitzkrieg, a steady, fast counterattack, and then it starts to go nuclear.
> Pretty much like the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
>
> OTOH Clancey foresees its settling into t prolonged stalemate - which
> seemed a lot more realistic! Remember WWI and WWII vs. predictions for
> them.

Hackett's view is exactly that of NATO of the time.

We fight, we just about stop them, everyone runs out of bullets,
their system for inserting reserve divisions into the line works, so
we blow up the world...

Assuming the Soviets couldn't apply their own doctrine when we could
(Clancy's basic assumption) isn't one a NATO general, even a retired
one, was ever going to make.

[Loren Pechtel]

On 25 Oct 2011 03:41:54 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

And the only reason we won in RSR is the Russians didn't have enough
oil. They had the firepower to win, just not the oil to get it to
battle.

[William Black]

Never having read the book, how on earth does he make that one stick?

Soviet Motor Rifle and Armoured Divisions carried a lot of fuel and the
USSR had lots of oil.

[Richard]

On Oct 25, 2:35 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:

Hmmm...so that explains Paul Krugman.

[Ray O'Hara]

"William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j876t1$a27$1...@dont-email.me...

the thing is the WP despite NATO scare mongering was still equipped with
many T-34/85s and JSIII tanks. asnd not the mass of T-72s we were always
told.
and how reliable were Czech and Polish Units going to be never mind the
Ruskis didn't trust the Jerries to allow their large formations to have
Jerry commanders.


but ultimately the Cold War was a scam thought up by FDR and Joe Stalin. it
allowed each to use the other as a boogie man and to keep down the folks on
their side of the fence.
The biggest strategic mistake we made was "winning" the Cold War.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> writes:

> On Oct 25, 3:19 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Il 25/10/2011 05:21, Ray O'Hara ha scritto:
>>
>> > I assume you mean Sir John Hackett and the point of his book was to scare
>> > politicians into more spending on weapons.
>>
>> well, I guess that many Americans was scared of his ideas on the
>> handling of the post-war, exactly the opposite of the last 20 years, a
>> strong welfare & socialdemocratic state  up to endorsing the idea of the
>> "citizen's income", that is, a negative tax percentage for the lowest
>> income citizens (that is, the state giving money instead of taking money...)
>>
>> With hindsight, I can say that he has correctly assessed the dangers of
>> an unrestrained turbo-capitalism unchecked by the disappareance of the
>> counterbalance from the sovietism.

More like turbo-mercantilism. I don't see capitalism anywhere---at least
not when it is fiat money-fueled. That is the only "money" a state can
"give away". All other real money it has to steal from those who created
or earned the wealth.

>> ...and he wasn't definitively an "old Labour" bloke....
>
> Actually, western governments seem to have overspent like mad, while
> regulating jobs out of their own nations.
>
> In the U.S. Politicians regularly say they will punish companies for
> sending U.S. jobs overseas by raising their taxes and costs, which
> hurts those that still produce here and exempts ones that have
> transferred production, tech support and other stuff offshore.

And of course company taxes are also just a ruse to tax individual consumers more.

--
Gernot Hassenpflug

[Dennis]

Ray O'Hara wrote:

>>>> Clancy is a gadget freak.
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't actually care that much about a large mechanised war
>>>> over a reasonable large part of E, rope
>>>
>>> My point was, Hacket& co. presented the war as being a quick,
>>> failed blitzkrieg, a steady, fast counterattack, and then it starts
>>> to go nuclear.
>>> Pretty much like the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
>>>
>>> OTOH Clancey foresees its settling into t prolonged stalemate -
>>> which seemed a lot more realistic! Remember WWI and WWII vs.
>>> predictions for them.
>>
>> Hackett's view is exactly that of NATO of the time.
>>
>> We fight, we just about stop them, everyone runs out of bullets,
>> their system for inserting reserve divisions into the line works, so
>> we blow up the world...
>>
>> Assuming the Soviets couldn't apply their own doctrine when we could
>> (Clancy's basic assumption) isn't one a NATO general, even a retired
>> one, was ever going to make.
>
> the thing is the WP despite NATO scare mongering was still equipped
> with many T-34/85s and JSIII tanks. asnd not the mass of T-72s we were
> always told.

Hackett talked about that.

> and how reliable were Czech and Polish Units going to be

Indeed! In 1980-1 the Soviets might have met with armed resistance from
the Polish Army. I can see how the Czechs might not be eager for
another involvement, nor the Hungarians.

> never mind
> the Ruskis didn't trust the Jerries to allow their large formations to
> have Jerry commanders.

Clancey talked about that! The East Germans realized that the Soviets
had plans for Germany to become a chemical WMD battlefield, to
exterminate a lot of the German population, so as to avoid worrying about
a post-war united Germany - and they refused to let the Soviets command
their units! The Sovs were, "What, our flunkies talking back to us???"

> but ultimately the Cold War was a scam thought up by FDR and Joe
> Stalin. it allowed each to use the other as a boogie man and to keep
> down the folks on their side of the fence.

<sigh> Typical demon theory.

> The biggest strategic mistake we made was "winning" the Cold War.

Please explain that one.

Dennis

[Diogenes]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:32:56 -0700 (PDT), "David E. Powell"
<David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:

>On Oct 24, 6:32 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>> > On 10/24/2011 3:05 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
>> >> "Locked On" by Tom Clancy.
>>
>> >> Apparently the plot is that Jack Ryan, Sr. becomes interested in
>> >> politics again.
>>
>> >> Someone who doesn't like that decides to try and go after Ryan's
>> >> friend, John Clark.
>>
>> >>http://tomclancy.com/has more information.
>>
>> >  I took a disliking to Clancy in the 1980s. I realize his books are
>> > fiction, but he mentions some special ops activities with which I was
>> > involved and got it wrong. I thought then, and still do, that he likes
>> > to drop names and look cool. When he started being called as an
>> > "expert" on military television shows I started changing channels.
>>
>> Did he not drop names to the point he was investigted ?
>
>When he wrote "The Hunt For Red October" a few people from certain
>service branches did stop by to ask him where he got some of his
>information. He was able to point to publically released stuff that
>covered it, and in some other case point where he took a few
>publically available sources and guessed or "guesstimated" the rest to
>fill in the gaps.

Milton Caniff, who drew 'Terry and the Pirates' and later 'Steve
Canyon', came under suspicion more than once due to amazingly accurate
scenarios he put in his comic strips.

In 1944 one of his plots in 'Terry and the Pirates' included a glider
born attack on Burma. The British, who were planning to spearhead
their invasion of Burma with a glider assault, were in a panic,
convinced there had been a leak.

The following year Caniff read about some American soldiers in China
being arrested by MP's for being out of uniform -- they were wearing
black shoes instead of brown. He surmised that they were actually
naval personnel there to set up a radio network and included that in
one of his 'Terry and the Pirates' plots. In the comic strip he used
'Happy Valley' as the codeword for the operation.

Not only had Caniff deduced the operation but, just by happenstance,
he had also used the actual code word in his comic strip. He had a
very long discussion with the FBI before he convinced them that it was
a nothing but an amazing coincidence.
----
Diogenes

The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .

[Andrew Swallow]

On 25/10/2011 20:52, David E. Powell wrote:
{snip}

> Actually, western governments seem to have overspent like mad, while
> regulating jobs out of their own nations.
>
> In the U.S. Politicians regularly say they will punish companies for
> sending U.S. jobs overseas by raising their taxes and costs, which
> hurts those that still produce here and exempts ones that have
> transferred production, tech support and other stuff offshore.
>

Particularly since the Asian countries like the work to be done by their
own companies.

Andrew Swallow

[Paul J. Adam]

Tactically, yes, but they don't have their entire warfighting reserve
rolling along with them.

and the
> USSR had lots of oil.

All produced from One Huge Facility in Clancy's book, which a group of
Islamic extremists comprehensively destroyed: very convenient for the
"but why would they do this?". The Red plan was to eliminate NATO as a
military force in a short, decisive war before striking south to seize
the oil fields of the Middle East (I'd have thought they'd want Iran but
Clancy decided the Soviets would go for Saudi Arabia, from memory)

Like most of these, the "why" is window dressing to the shooty whooshy
bangy bits: it's like those movies where the bloke with the dodgy
moustache has come to fix the TV or clean the pool of the unfeasably
large-breasted blonde woman, who *can* afford a huge house but
apparently *can't* afford clothes. It's not meant to be particularly
credible, it's there to provide an excuse for the action...


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[William Black]

On 26/10/11 09:00, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 26/10/2011 00:45, William Black wrote:
>> On 26/10/11 00:25, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>> And the only reason we won in RSR is the Russians didn't have enough
>>> oil. They had the firepower to win, just not the oil to get it to
>>> battle.
>>
>> Never having read the book, how on earth does he make that one stick?
>>
>> Soviet Motor Rifle and Armoured Divisions carried a lot of fuel
>
> Tactically, yes, but they don't have their entire warfighting reserve
> rolling along with them.

Which is Hackett's 'great unknown'. He assumes that the Soviet system
of swapping units on a divisional level will work reasonably well
without actually describing it.

Mind you, he also assumes that the 'Reforger' convoys will get through,
albeit battered.

> and the
>> USSR had lots of oil.
>
> All produced from One Huge Facility in Clancy's book, which a group of
> Islamic extremists comprehensively destroyed: very convenient for the
> "but why would they do this?". The Red plan was to eliminate NATO as a
> military force in a short, decisive war before striking south to seize
> the oil fields of the Middle East (I'd have thought they'd want Iran but
> Clancy decided the Soviets would go for Saudi Arabia, from memory)

This being at a time when the USSR was the biggest oil producer in the
world...

> Like most of these, the "why" is window dressing to the shooty whooshy
> bangy bits: it's like those movies where the bloke with the dodgy
> moustache has come to fix the TV or clean the pool of the unfeasably
> large-breasted blonde woman, who *can* afford a huge house but
> apparently *can't* afford clothes. It's not meant to be particularly
> credible, it's there to provide an excuse for the action...

Whereas in Hackett's book the fighting is almost secondary to the staff
level stuff.

[William Black]

Doesn't matter.

The only real Soviet players would have been SGFG, and they DID have
hordes of T-72s and all the rest of it.

> but ultimately the Cold War was a scam thought up by FDR and Joe Stalin. it
> allowed each to use the other as a boogie man and to keep down the folks on
> their side of the fence.
>

I'm inclined to agree about the political side, but for the people
involved lower down it was all terribly serious.

[Dennis]

Paul J. Adam wrote:

> On 26/10/2011 00:45, William Black wrote:
>> On 26/10/11 00:25, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>> And the only reason we won in RSR is the Russians didn't have enough
>>> oil. They had the firepower to win, just not the oil to get it to
>>> battle.
>>
>> Never having read the book, how on earth does he make that one stick?
>>
>> Soviet Motor Rifle and Armoured Divisions carried a lot of fuel
>
> Tactically, yes, but they don't have their entire warfighting reserve
> rolling along with them.

Hackett assumed their system of using reserve divisions could take care
of this. Dunno if it'd be true.

> and the
>> USSR had lots of oil.
>
> All produced from One Huge Facility in Clancy's book,

ISTR that that was a central pipeline facility, which is a little
believable, but I seriously doubt it's true.

> which a group of
> Islamic extremists comprehensively destroyed: very convenient for the
> "but why would they do this?". The Red plan was to eliminate NATO as a
> military force in a short, decisive war before striking south to seize
> the oil fields of the Middle East (I'd have thought they'd want Iran
> but Clancy decided the Soviets would go for Saudi Arabia, from memory)
>
> Like most of these, the "why" is window dressing to the shooty whooshy
> bangy bits:

> it's like those movies where the bloke with the dodgy
> moustache has come to fix the TV or clean the pool of the unfeasably
> large-breasted blonde woman, who *can* afford a huge house but
> apparently *can't* afford clothes. It's not meant to be particularly
> credible, it's there to provide an excuse for the action...

Ah, you've seen some Russ Meyers flicks, I see! :-)

Dennis

[William Black]

On 26/10/11 20:37, Dennis wrote:
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/2011 00:45, William Black wrote:
>>> On 26/10/11 00:25, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>>> And the only reason we won in RSR is the Russians didn't have enough
>>>> oil. They had the firepower to win, just not the oil to get it to
>>>> battle.
>>>
>>> Never having read the book, how on earth does he make that one stick?
>>>
>>> Soviet Motor Rifle and Armoured Divisions carried a lot of fuel
>>
>> Tactically, yes, but they don't have their entire warfighting reserve
>> rolling along with them.
>
> Hackett assumed their system of using reserve divisions could take care
> of this. Dunno if it'd be true.

I'd hate to be the man gambling his life on the USSR's inability to run
complex armoured manoeuvres.

[Ray O'Hara]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6ab56cbf-0c03-4808...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

In the U.S. Politicians regularly say they will punish companies for
sending U.S. jobs overseas by raising their taxes and costs, which
hurts those that still produce here and exempts ones that have
transferred production, tech support and other stuff offshore.

==========================================================================

well Fox News says they say that. but then Fox News routinely lies.
and as all the politicians have done is cut the taxes for corporations I
wonder how you can swallow such things.
last year GE pain no taxes yet still got a rebate of hundreds of millions.
short of protectionism through punitive tariffs or laws such as China and
Japan have that require things sold there to be made there there is nothing
that can be done.
Wall Street likes the low cost of Asia's near/actual slave labor and our
politicians do as Wall Street pays them to do.
Just wait until Romney wins, all labor laws and regulations are eliminated
and still no jobs. it should be interesting.
We are practising Capitalism as if we are determined to prove Karl Marx was
right.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Diogenes" <cdh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:meuea718i9pkp8iim...@4ax.com...

Maybe Phil Cochrane one of his characters was feeding him "background"
Phil was an important USAAF player in the CBI.

[Loren Pechtel]

The whole driving force behind the war in the first place was sabotage
that took out a major drilling complex/refinery. When we finally
found out what was up and directed our bombers at their fuel depots &
fuel transport in the battle zone they quickly reached the point where
they didn't have enough fuel in the battle zone to operate.

[Loren Pechtel]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:00:02 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

>All produced from One Huge Facility in Clancy's book, which a group of
>Islamic extremists comprehensively destroyed: very convenient for the
>"but why would they do this?". The Red plan was to eliminate NATO as a
>military force in a short, decisive war before striking south to seize
>the oil fields of the Middle East (I'd have thought they'd want Iran but
>Clancy decided the Soviets would go for Saudi Arabia, from memory)

For a quick victory the Saudis are the better target. It's flat and
open and the terrain is inhospitable enough that resistance in the
hills isn't much of an option.


Anyway, it wasn't *ALL* from the facility, it was that the loss of the
facility lost enough of their production that they went from having
enough to major shortages.

[Loren Pechtel]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:15:17 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:6ab56cbf-0c03-4808...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>
>In the U.S. Politicians regularly say they will punish companies for
>sending U.S. jobs overseas by raising their taxes and costs, which
>hurts those that still produce here and exempts ones that have
>transferred production, tech support and other stuff offshore.

Yup, and it favors foreign companies in preference to US companies.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> We are practising Capitalism as if we are determined to prove Karl Marx was
> right.

He *was* right, because uncontrolled Capitalism is the *worst*.

Communism arose *because* of Capitalism.

Uncontrolled Capitalism grows like a cancer.

Thank Marx...the fear of Communism forced us to become...well, more communistic.
;-)

[Tankfixer]

In article <j88em5$rv0$1...@dont-email.me>, - Paul J. Adam
paul....@gmail.com spouted !

>
> On 26/10/2011 00:45, William Black wrote:
> > On 26/10/11 00:25, Loren Pechtel wrote:
> >> And the only reason we won in RSR is the Russians didn't have enough
> >> oil. They had the firepower to win, just not the oil to get it to
> >> battle.
> >
> > Never having read the book, how on earth does he make that one stick?
> >
> > Soviet Motor Rifle and Armoured Divisions carried a lot of fuel
>
> Tactically, yes, but they don't have their entire warfighting reserve
> rolling along with them.

IIRC they carried two or two and a half days fill.
A day being the consumption rate figured on the Soviet norm and probably
well short of what would actually be used in combat.

[Tankfixer]

In article <j89pol$377$1...@dont-email.me>, - Ray O'Hara raymond-
oh...@hotmail.com spouted !

> last year GE pain no taxes yet still got a rebate of hundreds of millions.
>

Who is that guy who runs GE...
Oh year.. a Friend of Barry...

Funny how that get left our of your leftist screeds.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <MPG.2915dfbf...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Most of that was related to carry forward losses from the Meltdown and
GE Capital.

--

[Tankfixer]

In article <1YidnXeOM6Gz0zHT...@earthlink.com>, - Kurt
Ullman kurtu...@yahoo.com spouted !

>
> In article <MPG.2915dfbf...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
> > In article <j89pol$377$1...@dont-email.me>, - Ray O'Hara raymond-
> > oh...@hotmail.com spouted !
> >
> >
> > > last year GE pain no taxes yet still got a rebate of hundreds of millions.
> > >
> >
> > Who is that guy who runs GE...
> > Oh year.. a Friend of Barry...
> >
> > Funny how that get left our of your leftist screeds.
>
> Most of that was related to carry forward losses from the Meltdown and
> GE Capital.

So ?

[William Black]

On 29/10/11 18:56, Tankfixer wrote:
> In article<j88em5$rv0$1...@dont-email.me>, - Paul J. Adam
> paul....@gmail.com spouted !
>>
>> On 26/10/2011 00:45, William Black wrote:
>>> On 26/10/11 00:25, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>>> And the only reason we won in RSR is the Russians didn't have enough
>>>> oil. They had the firepower to win, just not the oil to get it to
>>>> battle.
>>>
>>> Never having read the book, how on earth does he make that one stick?
>>>
>>> Soviet Motor Rifle and Armoured Divisions carried a lot of fuel
>>
>> Tactically, yes, but they don't have their entire warfighting reserve
>> rolling along with them.
>
> IIRC they carried two or two and a half days fill.
> A day being the consumption rate figured on the Soviet norm and probably
> well short of what would actually be used in combat.

Plus fuel loaded onto their, admittedly few, organic transport elements
and also carried in 'informal' drums.

But they didn't expect to refuel and rearm, as NATO did, within a
'tactical context'.

Their doctrine was to replace units in the line with reserve units (GSFG
had, in theory, the numbers and organisation to do that) and replace,
rearm and refuel in a couple of days and then return, replacing another
unit that needed doing.

The big question remains 'Would it work?'

The Soviets though they could pull it off because they thought that
their ability to kill NATO air assets could keep them alive long enough
to switch the units around and NATO ground units would be locked in
their 'hedgehogs' awaiting the next assault.

As NATO reckoned that the life of an low level attacking
aircraft/helicopter would be about 14 seconds they may have had a point.

Of course NATO developed weapons systems that delivered air borne
weapons in less than 14 seconds but we didn't, thank God, ever find
out who was right.

But the ZSU-23-4 plus SA-13 still looks a pretty lethal combination for
the time, and the ZSU-23-4 subsequently proved a remarkably effective
weapon in a variety of situations.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <MPG.2915f3d5...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:

> In article <1YidnXeOM6Gz0zHT...@earthlink.com>, - Kurt
> Ullman kurtu...@yahoo.com spouted !
> >
> > In article <MPG.2915dfbf...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <j89pol$377$1...@dont-email.me>, - Ray O'Hara raymond-
> > > oh...@hotmail.com spouted !
> > >
> > >
> > > > last year GE pain no taxes yet still got a rebate of hundreds of
> > > > millions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Who is that guy who runs GE...
> > > Oh year.. a Friend of Barry...
> > >
> > > Funny how that get left our of your leftist screeds.
> >
> > Most of that was related to carry forward losses from the Meltdown and
> > GE Capital.
>
> So ?

So, it was a legitimate deduction and a legitimate (and time limited)
occurrance. Their 10-Ks show they paid $2230 million (that is how it was
in the report and I did not want to mess up the math) inm '07, $1849
million in taxes in '06, and $2797 million in '05. You all upset about
them paying too much those years?

[Dennis]

William Black wrote:

> But the ZSU-23-4 plus SA-13 still looks a pretty lethal combination for
> the time, and the ZSU-23-4 subsequently proved a remarkably effective
> weapon in a variety of situations.

Hackett said the helos and A-10s would form a team; the helos would take
out the ZSUs and SA-13,s and the A-10s would then attack the Soviet armor.
The helos' ability to use ground cover might make it work.

Dennis

[Paul J. Adam]

Hackett underestimated how much trouble a tank's main gun can give a
hovering attack helicopter (considering you'd be taking them on by the
battalion in this scenario, it's a serious problem) and the notion of
A-10s and AH-64s co-operating seamlessly does rather assume NATO air
supremacy: both are in serious trouble against fast jets. (Yes, they can
both turn tightly - but that's not how you survive, let alone win, in
the real world)

The winning answer for a tank massacre is kit like the Longbow radar and
millimetre-wave Hellfire on the helicopters, and Brimstone on the
fighter-bombers, but by the time those were up, working and fielded the
Soviet Union was history. (And we then had to rejig the Brimstone
stockpile: the standard model has a very clever seeker that can make a
good effort at telling a civilian vehicle, from a tank, from an AA
vehicle, and will prioritise accordingly: which is great for fighting
the Red Horde, but useless for trying to hit 'technicals' in Africa when
the seeker declares "civilian vehicle! invalid target!" and refuses to
play.)

[Paul F Austin]

Don't forget the importance of Pave Mover (JSTARS) which was the
keystone to the Assault Breaker program. The success of integrated
sensors and weapons during Desert Storm came as a tremendous shock to
the USSR

Paul

[William Black]

And the Soviets had something they called a 'Beehive' round that was a
sort of shotgun shell fired by a tank to stop that sort of thing.

Plus A-10s and assorted helicopters doing stuff like this tend to need
total air superiority.

NATO never expected to get that, just local air superiority when needed
for attacks.

The USSR could probably throw more MiG 29s at NATO than NATO had missiles...

[Ray O'Hara]

"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote in message
news:MPG.2915dfbf...@news.eternal-september.org...

leader worship is a rightwing trait.
and if Obama is so nice to business why do you reichwingers call him
anti-business?
Wall Street has done excellently under him.

[Tankfixer]

In article <j8hmhb$bc7$1...@dont-email.me>, - William Black
black...@gmail.com spouted !

>
> On 29/10/11 18:56, Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article<j88em5$rv0$1...@dont-email.me>, - Paul J. Adam
> > paul....@gmail.com spouted !
> >>
> >> On 26/10/2011 00:45, William Black wrote:
> >>> On 26/10/11 00:25, Loren Pechtel wrote:
> >>>> And the only reason we won in RSR is the Russians didn't have enough
> >>>> oil. They had the firepower to win, just not the oil to get it to
> >>>> battle.
> >>>
> >>> Never having read the book, how on earth does he make that one stick?
> >>>
> >>> Soviet Motor Rifle and Armoured Divisions carried a lot of fuel
> >>
> >> Tactically, yes, but they don't have their entire warfighting reserve
> >> rolling along with them.
> >
> > IIRC they carried two or two and a half days fill.
> > A day being the consumption rate figured on the Soviet norm and probably
> > well short of what would actually be used in combat.
>
> Plus fuel loaded onto their, admittedly few, organic transport elements
> and also carried in 'informal' drums.

That's part of the two/ two and a half days supply.

>
> But they didn't expect to refuel and rearm, as NATO did, within a
> 'tactical context'.
>
> Their doctrine was to replace units in the line with reserve units (GSFG
> had, in theory, the numbers and organisation to do that) and replace,
> rearm and refuel in a couple of days and then return, replacing another
> unit that needed doing.

Correct, which assumes the LOC back to the motherland are clear for
follow on forces.

>
> The big question remains 'Would it work?'
>
> The Soviets though they could pull it off because they thought that
> their ability to kill NATO air assets could keep them alive long enough
> to switch the units around and NATO ground units would be locked in
> their 'hedgehogs' awaiting the next assault.
>
> As NATO reckoned that the life of an low level attacking
> aircraft/helicopter would be about 14 seconds they may have had a point.
>
> Of course NATO developed weapons systems that delivered air borne
> weapons in less than 14 seconds but we didn't, thank God, ever find
> out who was right.
>
> But the ZSU-23-4 plus SA-13 still looks a pretty lethal combination for
> the time, and the ZSU-23-4 subsequently proved a remarkably effective
> weapon in a variety of situations.

Soviet style ADA has been combat tested in a variaty of theaters.
While somewhat effective it did not prevent the strikes from completing
their missions
It

[Tankfixer]

In article <2dydnQ4gl8U-wjHT...@earthlink.com>, - Kurt

Ullman kurtu...@yahoo.com spouted !
>
> In article <MPG.2915f3d5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
> > In article <1YidnXeOM6Gz0zHT...@earthlink.com>, - Kurt
> > Ullman kurtu...@yahoo.com spouted !
> > >
> > > In article <MPG.2915dfbf...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > Tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <j89pol$377$1...@dont-email.me>, - Ray O'Hara raymond-
> > > > oh...@hotmail.com spouted !
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > last year GE pain no taxes yet still got a rebate of hundreds of
> > > > > millions.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Who is that guy who runs GE...
> > > > Oh year.. a Friend of Barry...
> > > >
> > > > Funny how that get left our of your leftist screeds.
> > >
> > > Most of that was related to carry forward losses from the Meltdown and
> > > GE Capital.
> >
> > So ?
>
> So, it was a legitimate deduction and a legitimate (and time limited)
> occurrance. Their 10-Ks show they paid $2230 million (that is how it was
> in the report and I did not want to mess up the math) inm '07, $1849
> million in taxes in '06, and $2797 million in '05. You all upset about
> them paying too much those years?

I wonder, we keep harping about how they didn't pay any last year..
Ask the leftists if it upsets them.

[Tankfixer]

In article <j8ib0b$u1i$1...@dont-email.me>, - Ray O'Hara raymond-

oh...@hotmail.com spouted !
>
> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2915dfbf...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > In article <j89pol$377$1...@dont-email.me>, - Ray O'Hara raymond-
> > oh...@hotmail.com spouted !
> >
> >
> >> last year GE pain no taxes yet still got a rebate of hundreds of
> >> millions.
> >>
> >
> > Who is that guy who runs GE...
> > Oh year.. a Friend of Barry...
> >
> > Funny how that get left our of your leftist screeds.
>
>
> leader worship is a rightwing trait.

Really.
I don't recall elementary school teachers having their classes perform
songs in tribute of Bush.

> and if Obama is so nice to business why do you reichwingers call him
> anti-business?

Obama is only nice to business that funnels him money.
Didn't you say once that is a bad thing ?

> Wall Street has done excellently under him.

Yet the protesters pretty much ignore that...

[Paul J. Adam]

On 30/10/2011 06:59, Tankfixer wrote:
> In article<j8hmhb$bc7$1...@dont-email.me>, - William Black
> black...@gmail.com spouted !

>> But the ZSU-23-4 plus SA-13 still looks a pretty lethal combination for
>> the time, and the ZSU-23-4 subsequently proved a remarkably effective
>> weapon in a variety of situations.
>
> Soviet style ADA has been combat tested in a variaty of theaters.
> While somewhat effective it did not prevent the strikes from completing
> their missions

It's been half-tested - the ground-based side has been shown to work
(sometimes a lot better than expected, see Yom Kippur 1973) but the
integration with the air side has been lacking in most conflicts.

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval Dennis twisted the electrons to say:

I seem to recall reading, as a teenager, about how the A-10s had a tactic
for dealing with the ZSU-23-4. Namely, pull up, aim, shoot and dive
which they believed they could do faster than the ZSU could find them,
aim and shoot. I also seem to recall watching A-10s practicing that
whilst travelling by train (though since a Class 156 Super Sprinter[1] is
somewhat larger than a ZSU-23-4 I think that was cheating!)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_156>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[William Black]

On 30/10/11 08:49, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In sci.military.naval Dennis twisted the electrons to say:
>> William Black wrote:
>>> But the ZSU-23-4 plus SA-13 still looks a pretty lethal combination for
>>> the time, and the ZSU-23-4 subsequently proved a remarkably effective
>>> weapon in a variety of situations.
>> Hackett said the helos and A-10s would form a team; the helos would take
>> out the ZSUs and SA-13,s and the A-10s would then attack the Soviet armor.
>> The helos' ability to use ground cover might make it work.
>
> I seem to recall reading, as a teenager, about how the A-10s had a tactic
> for dealing with the ZSU-23-4. Namely, pull up, aim, shoot and dive
> which they believed they could do faster than the ZSU could find them,
> aim and shoot. I also seem to recall watching A-10s practicing that
> whilst travelling by train (though since a Class 156 Super Sprinter[1] is
> somewhat larger than a ZSU-23-4 I think that was cheating!)

That dodges one of them, they went around in fours...

[William Black]

On 30/10/11 06:59, Tankfixer wrote:
>
> Soviet style ADA has been combat tested in a variaty of theaters.
> While somewhat effective it did not prevent the strikes from completing
> their missions
> It

But 'the mission' has never actually been to attack the armoured unit
the ZSU-23-4 was with.

Well, not using the 'pure' Soviet divisional organisation.

We just don't know how well Soviet organisation would have worked, just
as we don't know how well NATO organisation would have worked in a full
on European war.

We're used modified tactics in GW1 and GW2 but, realistically, the
opposition wasn't of high quality and wasn't highly trained and wasn't
equipped to full Soviet standards.

[William Black]

You have to ask whose fault that is when the political reliability of
the pilots is considered before their ability in the air.

No Arab state allows a pilot to fly an armed war plane over their
capital city unless they're absolutely trustworthy.

The Saudis go so far as to insist that all armed war planes within range
of their capital are members of the royal family...

[William Black]

Well, the pilots anyway...

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:

The other three have faster traversing & elevating motors?

[Andrew Chaplin]

William Black <black...@gmail.com> wrote in news:j8i8m2$kfs$1@dont-
email.me:

> And the Soviets had something they called a 'Beehive' round that was a
> sort of shotgun shell fired by a tank to stop that sort of thing.

"Beehive" was a U.S. development and another name for a flechette
projectile. If Wikipedia is to be believed, later, similar projectile
development by the Soviets was intended for indirect fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_(ammunition).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Tankfixer]

In article <j8j0oj$k6q$1...@dont-email.me>, - Paul J. Adam
paul....@gmail.com spouted !
>

The success during Yom Kipper was the Israeli's being surprised by the
combination of SA6 and low altitude AAA.


The 1982 fighting over Syrian missile batteries in Lebanon (Bekaa Turkey
Shoot) was a test of both air and ground portions of the Soviet
philosophy.
Admitted most of the Syrian aircraft were obsolete or export versions.

[Tankfixer]

In article <j8jb0d$8j3$1...@dont-email.me>, - William Black
black...@gmail.com spouted !
>

> On 30/10/11 06:59, Tankfixer wrote:
> >
> > Soviet style ADA has been combat tested in a variaty of theaters.
> > While somewhat effective it did not prevent the strikes from completing
> > their missions
> > It
>
> But 'the mission' has never actually been to attack the armoured unit
> the ZSU-23-4 was with.

I believe it has been. See GW1 and 2.

>
> Well, not using the 'pure' Soviet divisional organisation.
>
> We just don't know how well Soviet organisation would have worked, just
> as we don't know how well NATO organisation would have worked in a full
> on European war.
>
> We're used modified tactics in GW1 and GW2 but, realistically, the
> opposition wasn't of high quality and wasn't highly trained and wasn't
> equipped to full Soviet standards.

I view "full Soviet standards" the same way I view their fullfilment of
their 5 year economic plans.

[Loren Pechtel]

A tactic that keeps them from getting a bead on you works against any
number of units as they will all have the same performance.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 30/10/2011 16:02, Tankfixer wrote:
> In article<j8j0oj$k6q$1...@dont-email.me>, - Paul J. Adam
> paul....@gmail.com spouted !

>> It's been half-tested - the ground-based side has been shown to work
>> (sometimes a lot better than expected, see Yom Kippur 1973) but the
>> integration with the air side has been lacking in most conflicts.
>
> The success during Yom Kipper was the Israeli's being surprised by the
> combination of SA6 and low altitude AAA.

Which is my point - SA-3 and SA-6 to make the middle altitudes lethal,
and SA-7 and ZSU-23-4 to kill anyone forced down low, was a very
effective combination. The Israelis were able to unpick it by a
combination of ground manoeuvre and air superiority, neither of which
automatically applied in a European Red Horde scenario.

> The 1982 fighting over Syrian missile batteries in Lebanon (Bekaa Turkey
> Shoot) was a test of both air and ground portions of the Soviet
> philosophy.
> Admitted most of the Syrian aircraft were obsolete or export versions.

Same issue, plus the Syrian kit was barely advanced on 1973 (think they
maybe had added some SA-8 but that was about it) and the Israelis were
advancing, not retreating.


Put the Soviet ground systems covering 3 Shock Army's advance and keep
feeding MiG-29 squadrons into the air battle, and while the Soviets will
definitely lose the exchange rate... I'm not sure they'll lose the war.

Luckily we never had to test it for real.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 30/10/2011 16:11, Tankfixer wrote:
> In article<j8jb0d$8j3$1...@dont-email.me>, - William Black
> black...@gmail.com spouted !

>> But 'the mission' has never actually been to attack the armoured unit
>> the ZSU-23-4 was with.
>
> I believe it has been. See GW1 and 2.

Not that representative: against Iraq we had the middle altitudes as a
fairly safe haven and could just stay above the MANPADS and AAA. When
A-10s tried to go lower, they were badly hammered as a result, and
joined the rest of the aircraft up high.

However, what did emerge was the difficulty of finding, hitting and
killing tanks even deployed in open desert, at relative leisure. How
well NATO airpower would have done with an unsuppressed SAM threat, the
full gamut of frontline SHORAD/AAAD, and enemy fighters interfering...
is unlikely to have been better.

>> We're used modified tactics in GW1 and GW2 but, realistically, the
>> opposition wasn't of high quality and wasn't highly trained and wasn't
>> equipped to full Soviet standards.
>
> I view "full Soviet standards" the same way I view their fullfilment of
> their 5 year economic plans.

There's a big delta between a typical Soviet-era Frontal Aviation pilot,
and a Syrian or Iraqi Air Force pilot - even before you get into the
technical issues of the "monkey model" export variants of the aircraft
and weapons.

[Paul J. Adam]

Not necessarily. Preventing the one in front of you from getting a good
shot is useful, but if it makes you an easier target for the ZSUs on the
flanks it's not necessarily a win.

The other problem is that, like the Sergeant York system going the other
way, it was all "today". The M247 DIVADS could annoy attack helicopters
firing missiles from 2-3km: when the Soviets upgraded to a range of 6km
it was immediately obsolete.

Similarly, The A-10 can - it's hoped - unmask, find targets, engage and
get back into clutter before a ZSU-23-4 can engage it: what do you do
when the ZSU-23-4 is upgraded or replaced (as indeed it was by the 2S6)?
Its IR signature isn't conducive to being engaged by SA-7 - but what
about the SA-16? And so it goes.

[Tankfixer]

In article <j8k02f$7oe$1...@dont-email.me>, - Paul J. Adam

paul....@gmail.com spouted !
>
> On 30/10/2011 16:02, Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article<j8j0oj$k6q$1...@dont-email.me>, - Paul J. Adam
> > paul....@gmail.com spouted !
> >> It's been half-tested - the ground-based side has been shown to work
> >> (sometimes a lot better than expected, see Yom Kippur 1973) but the
> >> integration with the air side has been lacking in most conflicts.
> >
> > The success during Yom Kipper was the Israeli's being surprised by the
> > combination of SA6 and low altitude AAA.
>
> Which is my point - SA-3 and SA-6 to make the middle altitudes lethal,
> and SA-7 and ZSU-23-4 to kill anyone forced down low, was a very
> effective combination. The Israelis were able to unpick it by a
> combination of ground manoeuvre and air superiority, neither of which
> automatically applied in a European Red Horde scenario.

The Israeli's were able to work out counters in time to tip the balance.

>
> > The 1982 fighting over Syrian missile batteries in Lebanon (Bekaa Turkey
> > Shoot) was a test of both air and ground portions of the Soviet
> > philosophy.
> > Admitted most of the Syrian aircraft were obsolete or export versions.
>
> Same issue, plus the Syrian kit was barely advanced on 1973 (think they
> maybe had added some SA-8 but that was about it) and the Israelis were
> advancing, not retreating.

I thought they had added SA5 by then but I could be wrong.

>
>
> Put the Soviet ground systems covering 3 Shock Army's advance and keep
> feeding MiG-29 squadrons into the air battle, and while the Soviets will
> definitely lose the exchange rate... I'm not sure they'll lose the war.
>
> Luckily we never had to test it for real.

Very true.

[Tankfixer]

In article <j8k0dh$943$1...@dont-email.me>, - Paul J. Adam
paul....@gmail.com spouted !
>

> On 30/10/2011 16:11, Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article<j8jb0d$8j3$1...@dont-email.me>, - William Black
> > black...@gmail.com spouted !
> >> But 'the mission' has never actually been to attack the armoured unit
> >> the ZSU-23-4 was with.
> >
> > I believe it has been. See GW1 and 2.
>
> Not that representative: against Iraq we had the middle altitudes as a
> fairly safe haven and could just stay above the MANPADS and AAA. When
> A-10s tried to go lower, they were badly hammered as a result, and
> joined the rest of the aircraft up high.

Coalition forces took the threat out above low level, I.E. early warning
and SAM guidance radars.

The US lost 4 to low altitude SAMS with four more written off after RTB.

>
> However, what did emerge was the difficulty of finding, hitting and
> killing tanks even deployed in open desert, at relative leisure. How
> well NATO airpower would have done with an unsuppressed SAM threat, the
> full gamut of frontline SHORAD/AAAD, and enemy fighters interfering...
> is unlikely to have been better.
>
> >> We're used modified tactics in GW1 and GW2 but, realistically, the
> >> opposition wasn't of high quality and wasn't highly trained and wasn't
> >> equipped to full Soviet standards.
> >
> > I view "full Soviet standards" the same way I view their fullfilment of
> > their 5 year economic plans.
>
> There's a big delta between a typical Soviet-era Frontal Aviation pilot,
> and a Syrian or Iraqi Air Force pilot - even before you get into the
> technical issues of the "monkey model" export variants of the aircraft
> and weapons.

I know, that's why I qualified my remarks in another post about the
Syrian establishment.

A question of how well the Full Soviet standard would have worked is the
unknown given how the front line troops frequently didn't get to train
with the equipment they would have gone to war with.

[William Black]

On 30/10/11 12:37, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:
>> On 30/10/11 08:49, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>>> I seem to recall reading, as a teenager, about how the A-10s had a tactic
>>> for dealing with the ZSU-23-4. Namely, pull up, aim, shoot and dive
>>> which they believed they could do faster than the ZSU could find them,
>>> aim and shoot. I also seem to recall watching A-10s practicing that
>>> whilst travelling by train (though since a Class 156 Super Sprinter[1] is
>>> somewhat larger than a ZSU-23-4 I think that was cheating!)
>> That dodges one of them, they went around in fours...
>
> The other three have faster traversing& elevating motors?

No, they are off to one side or the other and so the A-10 traverses the
angular distance somewhat slower because of the effects of distance.

[William Black]

Not if you're counting on outrunning a traversing turret from a greater
distance.

[William Black]

On 30/10/11 16:11, Tankfixer wrote:
>
> I view "full Soviet standards" the same way I view their fullfilment of
> their 5 year economic plans.

We all did.

We had to.

The alternative was packing it in and watching them roll by.

We needed to convince ourselves that they could be stopped, but we
didn't actually have enough ammunition to stop them even if some of our
people were left alive to shoot them off.

If GSFG worked as they were supposed to have worked we'd have been
thrashed no matter what we did.

Which is why NATO policy was 'Fight until exhausted and then blow up the
world'.

[Loren Pechtel]

Attack the outermost gun--the others will either be close in and
suffer the same limits or too far away and out of range.

[Paul J. Adam]

This is a war against the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and their
allies. To engage the "outermost gun" you're going to have to start your
attack run over either the Baltic or the Adriatic. There will be a _lot_
of these systems, and any pilot climbing to see where they are to plan
an artistic run-in against one group while avoiding another... will be
very quickly obliterated by a whole banquet of mixed dainties.

[William Black]

It's GSFG.

There's an awful lot of distance between the two outermost ZSU-23-4s

Starting at the ends and working in won't do the job this side of next
Christmas.

[William Black]

Plus swinging out over the Baltic for your run in will attract the
attention of enough MiG 29s to ruin your whole day...

People under about 30 who haven't looked at this stuff and have watched
GW1 and GW2 on TV have no idea about the projected huge scale of the
potential European war that could have happened between the end of the
Vietnam War and the end of the Soviet Union.

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:
> On 30/10/11 12:37, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> > In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:

> >> That dodges one of them, they went around in fours...
> > The other three have faster traversing& elevating motors?
> No, they are off to one side or the other and so the A-10 traverses the
> angular distance somewhat slower because of the effects of distance.

But they don't have any more warning of the attack, the A-10 isn't
visible for any longer and their shells will take longer to reach the
target.

[William Black]

On 01/11/11 16:46, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:
>> On 30/10/11 12:37, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>>> In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:
>>>> That dodges one of them, they went around in fours...
>>> The other three have faster traversing& elevating motors?
>> No, they are off to one side or the other and so the A-10 traverses the
>> angular distance somewhat slower because of the effects of distance.
>
> But they don't have any more warning of the attack,

Why not?

The vehicles have radar fitted.

They're not being shot at, the other vehicles are.

the A-10 isn't
> visible for any longer and their shells will take longer to reach the
> target.

If you think the flight time of a Soviet 23mm anti aircraft shell to
target has any significance at all when shooting at an A-10 (maximum
speed of about 380 Knots, clean, at sea level, about the same as a
Spitfire) you're very mistaken.

NATO themselves said the life expectancy of a low level aircraft
attacking a Soviet column would be about 14 seconds.

That's 'in, shoot, out of sight of all defenders' in 14 seconds.

Soviet doctrine puts the anti-aircraft vehicles on the flanks of its
advancing columns so you either fly over the AA vehicles on both sides
or turn back or fly out towards your own lines or the rear.

Fly over and the AA vehicles on the far flank get you, turn for home
and everyone has shot, turn to the rear and you have no idea what';s
behind the column, but it won't be friendly.

It's the reason why NATO developed the attack helicopter with 'pop-up
pop-down' tank killing capability.

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:
> On 01/11/11 16:46, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> > In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:

> >> No, they are off to one side or the other and so the A-10 traverses the
> >> angular distance somewhat slower because of the effects of distance.
> > But they don't have any more warning of the attack,
> Why not?
> The vehicles have radar fitted.
> They're not being shot at, the other vehicles are.

Ah, so according to you out of every group of 4 ZSU-23-4s, 3 have faster
traverse/elevation motors and a longer ranged radar than the other 1.
Also the crews of the "good" ZSU-23-4s don't talk to the crews of the
"bad" ZSU-23-4 ... Seems like a strange way to run an army to me.

[William Black]

On 01/11/11 20:00, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:
>> On 01/11/11 16:46, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>>> In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:
>>>> No, they are off to one side or the other and so the A-10 traverses the
>>>> angular distance somewhat slower because of the effects of distance.
>>> But they don't have any more warning of the attack,
>> Why not?
>> The vehicles have radar fitted.
>> They're not being shot at, the other vehicles are.
>
> Ah, so according to you out of every group of 4 ZSU-23-4s, 3 have faster
> traverse/elevation motors and a longer ranged radar than the other 1.

No.

> Also the crews of the "good" ZSU-23-4s don't talk to the crews of the
> "bad" ZSU-23-4 ... Seems like a strange way to run an army to me.

No

[Paul J. Adam]

On 01/11/2011 20:00, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In sci.military.naval William Black twisted the electrons to say:

>> Why not?
>> The vehicles have radar fitted.
>> They're not being shot at, the other vehicles are.
>
> Ah, so according to you out of every group of 4 ZSU-23-4s, 3 have faster
> traverse/elevation motors and a longer ranged radar than the other 1.

No.

The ZSU being directly attacked, sees an A-10 unmask from "somewhere" in
the forward sector, strafe and/or bomb, then break away and dive back
into terrain cover - all, hopefully, too fast for that vehicle to deal
with by detecting, slewing the turret onto, locking on the Gun Dish
radar, getting a fire control solution, finishing the fine aiming and
firing before the gun vehicle has been damaged, destroyed, or forced to
evade violently enough to break the process.

However, the ZSUs to either flank see the same thing... but are already
covering in that direction (standard principles - mutual support, and
enfilade fire from a defilade position) and are seeing slower angular
rates, so are more able to deliver effective fire - especially because
they're not being attacked themselves at that point. They're also able
to track the A-10 through its run and keep firing even after its weapons
have been released and hit.

There's a *reason* that - to the horror of the Military Reform Movement
- the primary US air-launched antitank weapon became the Maverick
missile rather than the 30mm cannon shell.

> Also the crews of the "good" ZSU-23-4s don't talk to the crews of the
> "bad" ZSU-23-4 ...

Can *you* pass a clear, comprehensive fire-direction order against an
air target, from a closed-down moving vehicle, by VHF voice radio, in
less than ten seconds?

Of course, if there's any radar cover, then the ZSUs will be using that
for alerting, so the A-10 will pop up to find it's *immediately* got a
Gun Dish locking onto it followed by four 23mm cannon demonstrating
their effectiveness. The Soviets were quite good at networked air defence.

Slow and low over the Central Front sounded much better in theory than
it ever looked in practice.

[William Black]

You have more patience than I have.

This stuff is all horribly basic and fully available in the literature
of the period.

I have a nasty suspicion that people are thinking that the late and
unlamented Soviet Union couldn't ever hope to win a war, or even shoot
down the odd aircraft, against the superb ingenuity of the United States.

[Loren Pechtel]

You take your look-see from beyond gun range. You then go in at
treetop height, shoot at one gun and dash back to safe air.