Nuclear correlation of forces, 1953, 1957 and 1962

HIST: Discussions about the last 4000 years of history, give or take a few days.

Moderator: K. A. Pital

User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Nuclear correlation of forces, 1953, 1957 and 1962

Post by phongn »

This information comes courtesy of Stuart Slade; it is illustrative of the balance of forces in the early Cold War and the culmination of Eisenhower's strategic weapons emphasis before Kennedy's shift back to a more conventionally-balanced army.
Balance of Power - 1953 There have been many debates about what would have happened if the US and China hadn't negotiated an end to the Korean War in 1953. Lets look at the balance of strategic power at that time to put the situation in context.

United States - Offensive

6 Heavy Bomb Wings with 185 B-36
4 Heavy Strategic Wings with 137 RB-36
7 Medium Bomb Wings with 329 B-47
4 Medium Strategic Wings with 99 RB-47
3 Medium Bomb Wings with 138 B-50
5 Medium Bomb Wings with 110 B-29
1 Medium Strategic wing with 38 RB-50 and 8 RB-29
5 Strategic Fighter Wings with 235 F-84G
20 Medium Air Refuelling Squadrons with 359 KC-97
8 Medium Air Refuelling Squadrons with 143 KB-29

Total stock of nuclear weapons - approximately 1,200 all fission devices

Its often assumed that the "strategic fighters" were intended to escort the B-36s. This isn't quite true. They were intended to "escort" them but in the sense of using nuclear weapons to blast a hole in the outer shell of the Soviet defenses. It was assumed that once the bombers were through the outer crust they could go more or less where they wanted.

United States - Defensive

600 F-86D, 37 F-89B, 31 F-89C, 109 F-94A, 356 F-94B. Large numbers of old piston engined fighters including F-47N and F-51D and H in the Air National Guard. Five Nike-Ajax battalions were formed but would not be operational until mid-1954.

Soviet Union - Offensive

1 Long Range Aviation Corps with 100 Tu-4A
18 Long Range Aviation Regiments with 1,100 Tu-4

The Tu-4A desigantion indicated that these aircraft were the only ones that were atmomic-weapons capable. At least some of these aircraft were configured to act as tankers. The Soviet Union had a stockpile of around 30 nuclear weapons in 1953, all fission devices.

Soviet Union - Defensive

Details are very unclear and contradictory but it appears that there were a mixture of around 1,000 fighters including MiG-15s and MiG-17s, Yak-23s and La-15s as jetfighters and La-11 piston-engined fighters.

A few things pop out of the pageon this. One is that the war is still largely a conventional one - the US has a ferocious atomic arsenal for its first blow but therafter bombing would be largely conventional. The Soviet Union has virtually no nuclear strike capability in terms of reaching the US.
Balance of power; 1957 Sometime earlier we looked at what may have happened in 1957 if the Soviet plans for an attack had gone though. I found the following inventory of strategic forces that might be interesting.

US

4 heavy bomb wings with 127 B-36,

7 heavy bomb wings with 243 B-52

28 Medium bomb wings with 1,285 B-47s

4 strategic recon wings with 216 RB-47s

5 heavy air refuelling squadrons with 24 KC-135

35 air refuelling squadrons with 742 KC-97

3 Atlas-D squadrons with 18 missiles (marginally operational)

5 units with 16 Regulus-1 missiles.

Soviet Union

12 Tu-20 Bear-A
10 M-4 Bison-A
72 Tu-16 Badger-A*
800 Tu-4 Bull**

*Could only reach the US coast on a one-way mission. More probably targeted on the UK

** Copy of US B-29 bomber. Could only reach the US on a one-way mission. Very few of these aircraft (probably no more than 36 - 108 ) were nuclear-capable.
How effective was the Soviet nuclear arsenal during that [Cuban Missle Crisis, 1962] period?


Deployable against the United States? Virtually nil.

Their ICBM was the R-7, a missile that had a detectable reaction time of 20 hours (the detection bit was in the hands of the U-2 and some other assets). By 1961, the R-7 force had grown enormously from its initila deployment level in 1959. By the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis there were no fewer than six R-7s in service. The follow-on to the R-7 didn't enter service until after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Soviet bomber force had also changed dramatically since its early days in the 1950s. The most effective weapon the Russian Air Force had was the Tu-95M/Kh-20 combination. There were 15 of these in service by the time Cuba boiled. Unfortunately, they'd have to fly through the NORAD air defense system for two hours before getting to a release point. There were also 25 free-fall Tu-95 bombers and 50 Myaschiev bombers but they were regarded as beinge asy meat for fighters and the Myaschievs were already being relegated to tanker work.

The Russians didn't have any seaborne ballistic nukes; the subs were so unreliable the missiles had explosive warheads. The cruise-missile carrying subs didn't have the range to get over the atlantic; they were tasked against European targets only. The Russians were so desperate they seriously planned nuclear delivery by firing nuclear tipped torpedoes into US ports.

By way of comparison, the US had 1 heavy bomb wing with 45 B-52 aircraft, two with 30 B-52s each and eight with 15 B-52s each, 22 Heavy Strategic Wings with 15 B-52s each and three heavy aerospace wings with a total of 75 B-52s (for a total of 630 B-52s with 547 Hound Dog missiles) 17 medium bomb wings with 45 B-47s each and 3 medium aerospace wings also with 45 B-47s each (for a total of 900 B-47s) to which we should also add 144 Atlas ICBMs, 62 Titan 1s and 20 Minutemen

We shouldn't forget the Navy of course; they brought 144 dedicated carrier-based nuclear strike aircraft and four SSBNs with 64 missiles to the party.

By my maths that gives the US a total of 1,674 nuclear strike aircraft and 290 missiles against 100 Soviet bombers and six missiles.
Last edited by phongn on 2008-04-03 05:29pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5466
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Post by Sidewinder »

:shock: I didn't know the US had such overwhelming superiority over the Soviets in terms of nuclear capabilities. Was this fact known to American government and military leaders during 1953, 1957, and 1962? Or did they believe Soviet propaganda inflating the quality and quantity of the Soviet nuclear arsenal?
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Makes the Cold War make more (or less?) sense... sounds like the US really amped up the threat of the Soviet Union, while the people on the Soviet side of things saw how big and powerful the US was and... crapped their pants.

Once more, seems like the popular perception of the world and its history has been painted by the "winner", the West.
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Sidewinder wrote::shock: I didn't know the US had such overwhelming superiority over the Soviets in terms of nuclear capabilities. Was this fact known to American government and military leaders during 1953, 1957, and 1962? Or did they believe Soviet propaganda inflating the quality and quantity of the Soviet nuclear arsenal?
The situation was, for what it is worth, completely reversed by the 1980s--the Soviets had systematic superiourity to us in every single area in that period, and they even had a reasonably effective ABM capability through illegal enhancements to their nuclear-tipped SAMs. If we had fought WWIII in 1986, the Soviets would have won, fullstop.

However, before 1969, when the Soviet computerized, integrated air defense and launch-response network came on, the USA would have won any war against the Soviets hands-down with basically no damage to the continental USA at all, though Europe would have been pasted.

We didn't know this, however; the Soviets were quite good at convincing otherwise, as it gave them a stronger hand on the world stage.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The situation was, for what it is worth, completely reversed by the 1980s--the Soviets had systematic superiourity to us in every single area in that period
More like very rough parity... :roll: Our ABM was not enough to hold over the strike. And why didn't you raise a fuss about our "illegal" nuclear ABMs if they were illegal? Didn't you pursue a similar program once?
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:If we had fought WWIII in 1986, the Soviets would have won, fullstop.
No, both would've been very dead. We would've "won" only in the sense that we would have reduced a First World nation to cinders and you only destroyed a Second World one.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:We didn't know this, however
Dunno. The nuclear planning documents from the US (including teh "gaze ya from the earth!" plans) does not indicate a lack of knowledge about the USSR; though I'm sure Stuart could weigh on this.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

Stas Bush wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The situation was, for what it is worth, completely reversed by the 1980s--the Soviets had systematic superiourity to us in every single area in that period
More like very rough parity... :roll: Our ABM was not enough to hold over the strike. And why didn't you raise a fuss about our "illegal" nuclear ABMs if they were illegal? Didn't you pursue a similar program once?
While Reagan initiated research with SDI, he never actually deployed any systems (though it was clearly intended to, at which point he would've been forced to withdraw from the treaty, as Bush did). The hue and cry over the Soviet system was that it was already deployed. As for effectiveness, anything except Moscow's dedicated system was of questionable use, but probably could bag an few RVs here and there.

The main issue was Soviet air-defense, which was more more comprehensive than its American counterpart. Sending in B-52Hs at low level, even nuking their way through and taking out C4ISR nodes, does not exactly inspire confidence.
Dunno. The nuclear planning documents from the US (including teh "gaze ya from the earth!" plans) does not indicate a lack of knowledge about the USSR; though I'm sure Stuart could weigh on this.
I don't have it on me right now, but I remember reading Dropshot, and it consistently overestimated both Soviet air-defenses and strategic strike capability.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

phongn wrote:The hue and cry over the Soviet system was that it was already deployed.
You had an opportunity to deploy one too; the treaty allowed for one system. And I know Reagan's SDI was bullshit to the core and nothing was deployed, the thing just being a financial hole.
phongn wrote:The main issue was Soviet air-defense, which was more more comprehensive than its American counterpart.
Well, our air offense wasn't as powerful as yours too ;)
phongn wrote:I remember reading Dropshot, and it consistently overestimated both Soviet air-defenses and strategic strike capability
I thought it was just making some unrealistic projections; usually those plans had a "go-ahead" date for the proposed conflict, to simulate the enemy's nuclear force development for some term.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

Stas Bush wrote:
phongn wrote:The hue and cry over the Soviet system was that it was already deployed.
You had an opportunity to deploy one too; the treaty allowed for one system. And I know Reagan's SDI was bullshit to the core and nothing was deployed, the thing just being a financial hole.
Marina wasn't referring to the Moscow system, but rather the many S-200 batteries tied into a battle-management system capable of engaging incoming RVs.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

But that system was aimed at high probability kills of <2000 and <3500 kph targets.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Stas Bush wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The situation was, for what it is worth, completely reversed by the 1980s--the Soviets had systematic superiourity to us in every single area in that period
More like very rough parity... :roll: Our ABM was not enough to hold over the strike. And why didn't you raise a fuss about our "illegal" nuclear ABMs if they were illegal? Didn't you pursue a similar program once?
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:If we had fought WWIII in 1986, the Soviets would have won, fullstop.
No, both would've been very dead. We would've "won" only in the sense that we would have reduced a First World nation to cinders and you only destroyed a Second World one.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:We didn't know this, however
Dunno. The nuclear planning documents from the US (including teh "gaze ya from the earth!" plans) does not indicate a lack of knowledge about the USSR; though I'm sure Stuart could weigh on this.
The Soviet Union, despite having a larger population than the USA, would have suffered half as many casualties in a 1980s nuclear exchange than the USA, and would have lost maybe a third as much of its industry as we would, due not only to American targeting plans but due to the inherent weakness of our attack compared with your's, and due to your ability to systematically intercept all of our bombers while still leaving over the nuclear tipped SA-10s and the SA-12s that had intrinsic anti-missile capabilities.

I say illegal because it was banned by the treaty; I however compliment you on having deployed some 15,000 of them, because I would not want to see more people killed in a nuclear war, and find anti-missile defences fundamentally humanitarian. So, I was not trying to criticize the USSR in any way; I believe it was a testament to your systematic development of capability that your nation was far more survivable than our's in the Cold War, and that you took defence seriously instead of playing games with it like we did.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

Sidewinder wrote::shock: I didn't know the US had such overwhelming superiority over the Soviets in terms of nuclear capabilities. Was this fact known to American government and military leaders during 1953, 1957, and 1962? Or did they believe Soviet propaganda inflating the quality and quantity of the Soviet nuclear arsenal?
Well, a lot of propaganda and what not hid a lot of the truth, and it doesn't help that the Soviets consistently employed disinformation campaigns.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Post by Ma Deuce »

Was this fact known to American government and military leaders during 1953, 1957, and 1962?
Yes, it was. Eisenhower did not make a big deal of this fact however, on the grounds that publicly embarrassing the Soviets over their strategic inferiority might make them do something irrational (though it was always assumed they would catch up eventually). JFK, on the other hand blatantly lied about Soviet nuclear capabilities (remember the "missile gap?") to help him win the 1960 election, which convinced the Soviets that he was a dangerous fanatic who wanted to launch a first strike, likely contributing to their decision to deploy missiles in Cuba.
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

Ma Deuce wrote:Yes, it was. Eisenhower did not make a big deal of this fact however, on the grounds that publicly embarrassing the Soviets over their strategic inferiority might make them do something irrational (though it was always assumed they would catch up eventually).
IIRC, the next stage of the plan was to finish up the US air-defense system and then implement the missile defenses right at the time the USSR was beginning its own strategic buildup. Continued development of other strategic weapons systems (i.e. B-70) would have put further pressure on the USSR.
JFK, on the other hand blatantly lied about Soviet nuclear capabilities (remember the "missile gap?") to help him win the 1960 election, which convinced the Soviets that he was a dangerous fanatic who wanted to launch a first strike, likely contributing to their decision to deploy missiles in Cuba.
Kennedy's poor showing at Vienna probably didn't help matters, either.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The Soviet Union, despite having a larger population than the USA, would have suffered half as many casualties in a 1980s nuclear exchange than the USA, and would have lost maybe a third as much of its industry as we would, due not only to American targeting plans but due to the inherent weakness of our attack compared with your's, and due to your ability to systematically intercept all of our bombers while still leaving over the nuclear tipped SA-10s and the SA-12s that had intrinsic anti-missile capabilities.
Wait, what? :? How did you compute that? And we had less industry to begin with; sparse populations, larger territories. And "the ability to systematically intercept all bombers"? Aren't you wanking our SAMs too much? :?

And it's ABM capabilities were complimentary really; the SAM and ABM function on different principles as Stuart mentioned many times; ABM and ASAT are more similar.

We also had (and still have) drills in case of nuclear attack, maintain at least around 50% of the shelters (many of them are slowly being restored after the 1991-2001 hiatus) for urban zones. Hell, we could've bankrupted our economy since we built so many nuclear shelters it's not even funny; city construction normatives, even for a small town, included them obligatory and in large numbers. Of course this would increase survivability too.

Yes, we took our defense a little more seriously instead of publishing "duck and cover", that I give you indeedy :lol:
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Post by Ma Deuce »

Stas Bush wrote:Wait, what? How did you compute that? And we had less industry to begin with; sparse populations, larger territories. And "the ability to systematically intercept all bombers"? Aren't you wanking our SAMs too much?
Indeed, and the idea of 15,000 nuclear-tipped quasi ABM/SAMs? That seems absurdly high. How many S-200s and S-300s did the PVO deploy in total?
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Ma Deuce wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:Wait, what? How did you compute that? And we had less industry to begin with; sparse populations, larger territories. And "the ability to systematically intercept all bombers"? Aren't you wanking our SAMs too much?
Indeed, and the idea of 15,000 nuclear-tipped quasi ABM/SAMs? That seems absurdly high. How many S-200s and S-300s did the PVO deploy in total?
In 1986 the Soviets had 10,212 offensively tasked strategic nuclear warheads. They had about 22,000 tactical nuclear warheads. Their total warhead strength was 45,000 warheads, and 51% were identified as being strategic.

That means there are around 12,000 nuclear warheads for strategic purposes that were not offensively tasked.

12,000 defensively tasked strategic nukes--i.e., SAM and ABM warheads. We know, after all, that the SA-10 / SA-12 had in total about 15,000 deployed (the numbers for the SA-10 alone were 10,000 in the early 1980s), and at the very least a very large number of these must have nuclear-tipped.

This is scarcely a large number; the USA planned 15,000 nuclear-tipped Nike-Hercules and 10,500 of the more advanced nuclear-tipped Nike-Zeus in the early 60's, with the programme intended to reach fruition by the mid-70s.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:We know, after all, that the SA-10 / SA-12 had in total about 15,000 deployed (the numbers for the SA-10 alone were 10,000 in the early 1980s), and at the very least a very large number of these must have nuclear-tipped.
No, you compute wrongly. Only S-200M "Vega-M" and S-200D "Dubna" had nuclear payloads. In fact S-200M "Vega-M" arrived only post 1970 and S-200D only arrived in 1976.

Then - what the hell is "total deployment"? You know full well that the peak number of actively deployed S-200 systems was 130 sites and 1,950 launchers in mid-1980s - and not all of them (though by that time probably most) were of the Dubna and Vega variety.

So in short, your numbers are totally wrong. Total deployed over the years from 1967 to 1991 is not the number of units deployed at any given time, and the first "many thousands" of such units produced were not nuclear-tipped.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
thejester
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 2005-06-10 07:16pm
Location: Richard Nixon's Secret Tapes Club Band

Post by thejester »

Ma Deuce wrote:
Was this fact known to American government and military leaders during 1953, 1957, and 1962?
Yes, it was. Eisenhower did not make a big deal of this fact however, on the grounds that publicly embarrassing the Soviets over their strategic inferiority might make them do something irrational (though it was always assumed they would catch up eventually). JFK, on the other hand blatantly lied about Soviet nuclear capabilities (remember the "missile gap?") to help him win the 1960 election, which convinced the Soviets that he was a dangerous fanatic who wanted to launch a first strike, likely contributing to their decision to deploy missiles in Cuba.
According to Norman Friedman, Khrushcev thought that there were two dominant strains in US strategic thinking - those prepared to compromise and fanatics looking to destroy the Soviet Union. Kennedy was seen as being someone who could be manipulated by both camps rather than an outright member of either.
Image
I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding.
- Ron Wilson
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Numbers for S-200M Vega-M and the successor system S-200D Dubna nuclear warheads, IOC 1971 and 1978 accordingly, from Robert Johnston listing:
S-200M Vega-M 700 to 1000
S-200D Dubna 200 - 1000
Considering peak S-200 deployment in 1985 with 1950-2030 S-200 units, even if they all were of the Vega-M and Dubna variety, there's hardly anywhere close to the 15,000 claimed.

The math with nuclear warheads in the USSR is also striking me as wrong. In 1985, the USSR had 10012 strategically tasked warheads. Not "offensively". The 45,000 number probably includes tons of reserve warheads lying on military bases and so on.

The USSR did NOT count ABM warheads as strategic - they were tac nukes (and also fell under liquidation hammer). The numbers are below:

The post-Soviet liquidation of tacnukes treaty exposed teh number of tac nukes: RAN issue on de-armament. The USSR had 21700 tacnukes, 6700 for the Army, 7000 for Front Aviation, 5000 in the Navy and 3000 tacnukes in the PVO (air defense).

Considering the number of active S-200 complexes is even less than the number of tactical nukes available to the PVO,
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Ma Deuce wrote:Yes, it was. Eisenhower did not make a big deal of this fact however, on the grounds that publicly embarrassing the Soviets over their strategic inferiority might make them do something irrational (though it was always assumed they would catch up eventually). JFK, on the other hand blatantly lied about Soviet nuclear capabilities (remember the "missile gap?") to help him win the 1960 election
Actually, no.

The intelligence that the Soviets were actually far far behind us in all types of strategic weaponry (Bombers, missiles) was a closely held national secret; with only Ike and the top military leaders knowing about it.

Why?

Because it was being gathered by the highly secret U-2 program which was overflying Russia at the time. (and possibly by even more secret and dangerous RB-36 overflights of Siberia - which can be inferred from by the Soviet emphasis on heavy long ranged interceptors for Siberia)

Saying publically that the Soviets have no missiles would lead to the question:

"Bullshit. Where's this information coming from?"

from Congress and everyone else; and to make it credible, you have to announce the fact that yes, you've been violating Russian Airspace with the U-2, which is going to be politically explosive both domestically and internationally.

Just after Kennedy won the election, he tasked "Strange' to go study the U-2 photographs from the overflights (since the Kennedy gang was now the president elect gang, they now could get clearance); and of course Strange comes to the same conclusion that Ike did - that the missile gap was all made up.

EDIT: And yes, I know the U-2 was shot down in May 1960 or thereabouts, but Kennedy didn't become POTUS Elect until November 1960; and it's not like the full extent of what we got from the U-2 overflights of Russia immediately became declassified information when Francis Gary Powers showed up on Moscow TV.
Last edited by MKSheppard on 2008-04-04 05:08am, edited 1 time in total.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Wait, what?

They flew strategic nuclear bombers over Siberia?! :shock:
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Wait, what?

They flew strategic nuclear bombers over Siberia?! :shock:
There's never been any hard evidence to back this up, but if you read Yefim Gordon's "Red Star" series monograph on Russian Heavy Jet Interceptors from Midland press; you'll see that the Soviets were constantly pressuring and agitating for a heavy interceptor specifically to defend Siberia; which makes you wonder what was going on there.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Hrm... that makes Russia's dickery with their Tu-95s more understandable, now that it seems that they were the ones who got dicked first.
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

On the night of April 29, 1954; several USAF RB-45Cs fly over Moscow. Technically, they weren't USAF aircraft, because at the time, they were being flown by RAF crews. :lol:

In May 1955, six RB-47s flew straight past the Urals mountain and into the Soviet heartland,

In May 1956, three RB-57s did a simultaneously overflight of Vladviostock, getting us holiday snaps from 3 different directions.

And here's a Story from a RB-47 crewmember:

Link
By this time, we had covered two more major airfield targets near Arkhangelsk and were turning to the Southwest toward our last two targets. We had been over Soviet territory an hour and were at 40,000 feet. We had been briefed by Intel that the Mig-15 would not be able to do any damage to us at 40,000 feet with our true air speed on the order of 440 knots.

Well, you can imagine what we called those Intelligence weenies as the first Soviet Mig-17, not Mig-15, made a firing pass on us from the left rear, and we saw cannon tracer shells going both above and below our aircraft. And, the Mig was still moving out rather smartly as he passed under us in front. So enough of this 40,000 feet stuff, I pushed the RB-47 over, descending a couple of thousand feet picking up about 20 knots indicated airspeed in the process. The second Mig-17 made his firing pass and I don’t care who knows, it was scary watching tracers go over and under our aircraft. This guy had almost come up our tailpipes.

Fortunately, when the third Mig started his pursuit pass, our guns burped for a couple of seconds. General LeMay did not believe in tracers for our guns, but the Soviet pilots must have seen something because the third guy broke off his pass and the flight of six, and the next flight which joined us later, stayed out about 30 to 40 degrees to side, out of the effective envelope of our guns. Of course, the Migs didn’t know that our guns would not fire again, even though the Co-pilot pleaded, and I believe he did, at least, kick the panel trying to get them to work.

The fourth Mig of this flight made a firing pass and made a lucky hit through the top of our left wing, about 8 feet from the fuselage through the wing flap. It exploded into the fuselage in the area of the #1 main tank and knocked out our intercom. We felt a good whap and all three of us were a little bit anxious (scared) but doing our mission as briefed, basically because of habit. I firmly believe that’s what good, tough, LeMay-type, SAC training did for his combat crews. Later we also found out, it hit our UHF radio in a way that it would not channelize but was stuck on channel 13, our command post common.

By now we had covered our last photo target and had turned due west toward Finland to get the hell out of there. That flight of six ran out of range I guess and, we were near the Finland border. Real soon another three Migs showed up. Two Migs of this flight made individual firing passes but our added speed obviously made it a bit tougher or I am pretty sure I would not be here writing about this mission today. After those two made passes, on of the Migs came up on our right side, close enough to shake hands and sat there for two or three minutes. Two more Migs tried firing passes, but without hitting us, by this time we were well out of Soviet territory. At the debriefing in Omaha, General LeMay asked, ?Why were you not shot down?? My answer was that there was no doubt in my mind the Mig-17 pilots could have shot us down, if they had been willing to come right up our tailpipes! He made a statement that he was “convinced that most fighter pilots are basically cowards anyway.” General LeMay also said, “There are probably several openings today in command positions there, since you were not shot down.”

Our excitement for this mission was not over. An airborne stand-by KC-97 tanker was holding for us about 50 miles from Stavanger, Norway. We really weren’t sure how the damage to our left wing and fuselage would effect fuel consumption. Initially it didn’t look that bad. As we came into radio range of our airborne tanker I heard him calling (garbled) in the blind on command post common, the only working part of our UHF radio. We were running about 30 minutes behind schedule; I heard the tanker state he was leaving the orbit area at the appointed time. I tried to acknowledge his call but he later said he never heard me transmit anything. Of course they had not been briefed on our mission, but were aware that three B-47’s went through refueling areas that morning and only two had returned.
Last edited by MKSheppard on 2008-04-04 05:21am, edited 1 time in total.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Even if there was a thwarted flyby or provocation, I'm sure USSR would get all up in arms about it. I don't know about RB-36 flybys (there are lots of PVO operators and they readily tell about even more recent flyovers, but no info on RB-36 flybys has surfaced so far which is why I conclude that looks more like a legend).
MKSheppard wrote:The intelligence that the Soviets were actually far far behind us in all types of strategic weaponry (Bombers, missiles) was a closely held national secret
Of course. Else you'd embarrass yourselves, but also totally prove there's no "misile gap" and that shit Kennedy's been peddling. ;) Your leaders knew all that but you just chose to keep the sheeple in the dark. Neither did you seriously explain how badly you outclassed us even after we downed a U-2, nor after the CMC.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Post Reply