Scenario background--Proxy war with Soviets (1981)--requesting feedback

[Mgellis]

This is a request for feedback, suggestions, etc. for a "backstory" that may be used to create a number of scenarios.

The assumption is that, by 1981, America was sending aid to Afghanistan through Pakistan. The point of divergence is that the Soviets try to attack various supply convoys, etc. before they get to Afghanistan, sometimes crossing the border into Pakistan itself (Stage 1). There is no ground invasion, only aircraft crossing the border and quickly heading back home once they've hit their targets.

The result of this (Stage 2) is that American forces assist the Pakistani air force in protecting its northwest frontier. This leads to air battles between American and Soviet forces.

This leads to the next level of escalation (Stage 3) in which the Soviets go after convoys entering and leaving Pakistani ports. American ships join Pakistani ships in protecting these convoys, leading to limited but direct confrontations between American and Soviet naval forces.

(Each stage might have more than one scenario connected to it.)

I'm assuming things do not escalate beyond this point...probably after a couple of incidents, one side would back off and things would settle down. By 1982 or 1983, the Soviets have either stopped trying to sink Pakistani convoys or the Americans have found other, less direct ways to send aid to Afghanistan and no more Pakistani ships are being sunk.

Throughout all this, tensions are high in Europe, but there is no fighting. Nuclear weapons are NOT being used. This is yet another proxy war. As long as neither the Soviet Union nor the United States feels it is directly threatened, even if there are serious losses (e.g., a carrier), this is NOT going to escalate into World War III. (Frankly, the Soviets aren't even thinking in those terms, although they are a little worried that the Americans might use this as a pretext for a larger war. All they really want is a) to be left alone while they try to defeat Afghanistan, which is proving harder than they thought it would be and, b) to give Pakistan the spanking the Soviets think they deserve for helping the Americans stick their noses into the whole business.)

So...what do you think? I'm very interesting in getting feedback on this one. How plausible is this? What other details, complications, etc. am I missing?

Thanks!

[MR_BURNS2]

Brilliant idea, it is a reasonable enough plot, with Pakistan playing a role somewhat similar to North Vietnams in the Vietnam war.
Pakistan always had good relations with China who by then was a rival of the soviets, maybe they could play a role at some point.

[Coiler12]

Ok, I don't see this going as far as large Soviet-USN naval engagements. One is for political reasons, and the other is that I don't think the supplies provided to the mujaheddin would need to be carried in huge fleets of freighters, especially this early on. That being said, it's an interesting possibility. Here's how I would design it.

Scenario 1: Soviet airstrike on Mujaheddin supply train in northwest Pakistan. Would feature difficult terrain, Pakistani air and anti-air defenses, and a strict no-navigation zone that prevents more than a plausibly deniable way into Pakistan "Oh, Mr. Ambassador, we just accidentally slipped in-the poor crew got target fixated", etc...

Scenario 2: Soviet air/naval forces against the Pakistan navy. Maybe a clandestine mining mission as well.

And that's as far as I see it going.

[Russian Heel]

Direct action between Soviet and US forces wouldn't be a proxy war by definition. A war between Soviet armed and advised government Afghan forces and US armed and advised Pakistani forces would be a proxy war.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel

Direct action between Soviet and US forces wouldn't be a proxy war by definition. A war between Soviet armed and advised government Afghan forces and US armed and advised Pakistani forces would be a proxy war.

Sorry, "proxy war" was probably the wrong term..."limited war" is probably better.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Coiler12

Ok, I don't see this going as far as large Soviet-USN naval engagements. One is for political reasons, and the other is that I don't think the supplies provided to the mujaheddin would need to be carried in huge fleets of freighters, especially this early on. That being said, it's an interesting possibility. Here's how I would design it.

Scenario 1: Soviet airstrike on Mujaheddin supply train in northwest Pakistan. Would feature difficult terrain, Pakistani air and anti-air defenses, and a strict no-navigation zone that prevents more than a plausibly deniable way into Pakistan "Oh, Mr. Ambassador, we just accidentally slipped in-the poor crew got target fixated", etc...

Scenario 2: Soviet air/naval forces against the Pakistan navy. Maybe a clandestine mining mission as well.

And that's as far as I see it going.

I envisioned something like that, but assumed US forces might get drawn into the fray because they would be in the area. If a Soviet submarine starts shooting at an ally's ships--not just following him but actually taking a shot--and our forces were on the scene, and we were working with Pakistan on a joint military venture (i.e., covert aid to Afghanistan) and we don't want Pakistan to say, "Clearly, we cannot rely on you; this deal is off," would we just stand there and do nothing?

[Bazza042]

I don't know if you have come across a book:

Dragonfire by Humphrey Hawksley ISBN: 0 333 90324 2)

This takes place in 2007 and predicates an Indian/Pakistani war in which China and then the other powers get involved: although in this case Pakistan is a client state of China. There is a good description of the air assets involved.

His other book Dragon Strike (ISBN: 0 283 06316 5) is set in 2001, and is actually very topical - It takes place around China's 'annexation' of the Paracel and the Spratly Islands, except in this case they use naval and military force to achieve their ends. This upsets Vietnam and Japan and covers their reactions: America then gets involved and loses a small warship. The North Koreans invade the South and it all kicks off. Chine puts a missile sub off the coast of the States and there is a desperate hunt to to find it. It all stays non-nuclear.

Both were distinct possibilities at the time the books were written around 2000 and he appears to have a good knowledge of the assets likely to be involved.

The author was the Far East correspondent for the BBC

[Russian Heel]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel

Direct action between Soviet and US forces wouldn't be a proxy war by definition. A war between Soviet armed and advised government Afghan forces and US armed and advised Pakistani forces would be a proxy war.

Sorry, "proxy war" was probably the wrong term..."limited war" is probably better.

Limited war is the term you are looking for I think - there are lots of good background stories in the old 'Fleet' series by Victory Games that covered limited engagements by US and or NATO/Allies with Soviet Forces.

[Gunner98]

You could start it out as a 'Proxy war' in your Stage 1. Have a few MiGs painted in Afghan colours and flown by 'advisors'. By stage 2 your in limited war I think.

A 'stage 1' situation could involve the Sov's trying to shoot down a C-5 heading for Quetta or Peshawar. You could also have a background scenario with Hinds being shot down with US supplied Stingers.
Stage 2 would be short, probably a couple weeks at most and only involve limited forces, a Sqn of F-16s with AWACS, Tanker and J-STARS support, perhaps some A-10s supporting ground ops but that would be a stretch.

I think the Carrier support would be limited to stage 3. A CAW sticking its nose into this conflict would be a major statement and really unbalance the Soviet effort and require them to surge quite a bit of airpower. I cannot find a reference but, I recall something that the Sov's had at most an Air Division of fast movers in theatre at any one time. There would have been several hundred transports and support A/C for sure, and 40th Army's complete complement of aviation (probably more), but the actual strike A/C would be limited to MiG 21s at first replaced by Su-25s, both reinforced by MiG-23s. This could obviously change rapidly, and did from time to time. My guess would be that in 81, there would be 2 Regts of MiG 21s (40-42/Regt) and a Regt of MiG 23s providing general support and if needed AAW. A few Su-24 OECM/ELINT variants could be sprinkled in for support. This is not enough to fend off a CAW.

This is an interesting article, it doesn't give numbers but mentions a sortie generation rate of over 100/day, which could easily be achieved by an Air Div.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... elson.html

This looks quite interesting, would be happy to help test it.

BG

[Russian Heel]

JSTARS in 1981? Stinger wasn't even fully fielded by US forces in 1981, they weren't supplied in Afghanistan until 1986.

Everything you want to know about aviation in Afghanistan:


http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/afgan.html

(Russian language, you can prob use google translate and figure the point/numbers out- don't try to read the articles I assume they are translated awful)

[Gunner98]

Point taken on the dates - should not post before first morning coffee.

The site is quite helpful, and if I am reading it correctly there was quite a bit more than I thought (plus lots of Helos that I didn't include):

34th Air Corps:
Fighter Regiments:

120 IAP MiG- 23MLD Bagram (extreme regiment in time) ???
190 IAP MiG- 23MLD Bagram
655 IAP MiG- 23MLD
168 IAP ??? Aircraft
85 IAP Bagram
115th Guards IAP MiG-21bis worked with Bagram airfield and Kokayty (USSR)

Attack Aviation Regiments:

200 - I oshae Shindand Su-25 ( 1980-1984 ). ???Not sure what oshae means - squadron?
378th Shap Kandahar Su-25 ( formed in 1984 on the basis of the 200th oshae ) ???Shap - squadron?

23 x Su-25's lost in combat
Fighter- Bomber Regiment :

136th Su- 17M4 ibap poeskadrilno Kabul , Bagram , Kandahar
217th Su- 17M4 ibap Shindand
156th Su- 17M4 ibap worked with Mary-2 airfield
274th ibap
My understanding of the acronym IBAP is Instructor Bomber aviation Regt - but that doesn't make sense to me

Mixed Aviation Regiment :

50th osap Nos. 97978 (An-12, Mi- 8, Mi -6) Kabul

Kokayty airfield Uzbekistan? - bombers of 73rd Air Army TurkVO:

149th Guards bap Su-24 (Alma -Ata)
143rd bap Su-24 ( Kutaisi -1 )
735th bap Su-24
87th Orapa Su -24R(reconnaissance)

Support from airfields in the USSR in 1984 and 1988-1989 Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiments:

Khanabad airfield :
Guards TBAP 200 Tu-16 (1984) (Bobruisk)

airfield Mary-2 (1984):
1225 TBAP Tu- 22m2 (White , ZabVO)

airfield Mary- 1:
Guards TBAP 251 Tu-16(1988-1989 year) (White Church)

airfield Mary- 2 (1988-1989 year):
Guards TBAP 185 Tu- 22M3 (Poltava)
1225 TBAP Tu- 22m2 ( White , ZabVO )
TBAP 402 Tu-22M3 ( Orsha )
341 Tu- 22M3 TBAP
TBAP 840 Tu-22M3 ( Novgorod Soltsy )
TBAP 52 Tu-22M3 ( Shaykovka )

[Russian Heel]

ибап = Истребительно-бомбардировочные авиационные полки, Истребительно-бомбардировочные is the adjective form of Истребитель-бомбардировщик which means Fighter-Bomber 136th IBAP is 136th Fighter-Bomber Regiment (Notice the fighter regiments are "IAP" - истребительный авиационный полк - Fighter Aviation Regiment)

378th ShAP (штурмовой авиационный полк) Attack Aviation Regiment

200th OShAe (google let you down with the "I" is the word for "I" and the abbreviation for "th" in numbers) ОШАЭ = Separate Attack Squadron (a squadron that reported directly to Corps, not to a regiment or division)

Wow, it translated the name of the city Bila Tserkva in Urkraine to "White Church" That is like calling Montenegro "Black Mountain"

168th IAP had MiG-23s:

[Russian Heel]

Also (крайний полк по времени) is letting you know the regiments with no other base or notes were "Full-Time Regiments" permanently based in Afghanistan, not rotating personnel and a/c to other bases or based in the Soviet Union. It doesn't mean "extreme regiment in time" [:D]

[Gunner98]

Thanks for sorting me out, nice photos. One more quick one:

136-¨¦ §Ú§Ò§Ñ§á (N6an) Translates to 136th IBAP: Has the 'I' snuck in there again, this should probably be simply a Bomber Aviation Regt not an Instructor regiment I think.

Also, if a Regiment that was 'Full-Time' is noted, does that imply that the others rotated only portions of the units in theatre, and surged in when they were needed? That would make sense to me based on what I have found in the past, i.e. if the 120th IAP 'full time' and the others rotated 1/4 or 1/3rd of their force in at any one time, the net result would be an Air Division: 1xIAP full time, 1 (ore perhaps 2) composite IAP, 1 composite BAP, later the ShAP, in addition to rotary wing and support AC.

Does that seem right to you? .

B

Edit - the forum changed the russian to French or Swahili I think

[Russian Heel]

И=I it is the abbreviation for Истребительно(adj) (истребитель - noun) which is pronounced Istrebitelno(istrebitel) It is the Russian word for "Fighter"
The I in IAP means "Fighter" Polk is '"regiment" that is the P IAP = Fighter Aviation Regiment. There is no "Instructor" anywhere with an I. Sometimes I see the bomber regiments listed in English language sources as "Training" because the Unit has a "T" in it T is for Тяжелый (Tyazhelyy) which means "Heavy" so TBAP means Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment. "Training" is учебный (uchebnyy) That is why when you look at variants of different Soviet and Russian a/c the trainer variant is always with a "U" ie: MiG-21UM, MiG-29UB - both 2 seat trainers.

So to summarize I an T have nothing to do with training in Soviet/Russian units I stands for Fighter and T stands for Heavy. U is the initial for training.

[Russian Heel]

Full Time = HQ was stationed in Bagram - rotation command was (officially) located at home base. If you were in a Full time unit you were stationed in Afghanistan, the others you might be there just as long as everybody else but you were technically just deployed. I'd have to check but I think in the winter months the not full time units drew down to minimum force levels but in the spring and summer most everyone was there. Don't quote me on that.

Full time units remained in country 365 of course.

[Mgellis]

Thanks for all the information.

[Mgellis]

I'd be grateful for feedback on this version, too...

In 1982, Reagan uses Pakistan as a staging ground for assisting Afghan rebels against the Soviets.

By late 1982, the Soviets have had enough of Pakistani interference. They bomb various locations in Pakistan, particularly on the Afghan-Pakistani border. Unfortunately, this has precisely the opposite effect they were hoping for. Pakistan is enraged but instead of blaming the United States, they escalate their attacks against Soviet positions in Afghanistan and they ask the United States for help. Reagan is glad to assist them.

In early 1983, India, in accordance with their long-standing friendship with the Soviet Union, attacks Pakistan. Pakistan is battered and begs the United States for help. Reagan feels he cannot walk away from Pakistan; he thinks that to do so would send a message to every American ally that, when the going gets tough, all the talk is just talk, and all the Americans will really do is cut and run. He is not going to attack the Soviet Union directly, but he does warn them and India that he intends to continue to offer assistance and will tolerate no interference with American convoys bringing aid to Pakistan. But the Soviets think they have enough subs to send the convoys to the bottom of the Indian Ocean and make the American Navy head for home with its tail between its legs. India was not counting on a war with the United States, but does not see any way out of this mess except to push forward and hope they and the Soviets can hurt the US enough, quickly enough, to make them give up.

The summer of '83 is shaping up to be a hot one...

Well? Thoughts? Observations? Suggestions? Does this make sense? Is it plausible? Is there anything you would change, add, etc.?

Thanks in advance.

[Russian Heel]

Hmmm, plausible, I dunno. There were some incursions into Pakistan and a couple F-16s were shot down, but all of that was a bit later. In 1983 Andropov was in the hospital dying of liver failure and considering the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, he was afraid of war with the West and convinced they were about to attack the Soviet Union. This is part of what lead to the Able Archer incident. I don't think he would press this in such a manner. The there is India, while they had a close relationship with the USSR, they maintained a relationship with the UK and they played a delicate balancing act between the two. They were not a puppet that would go to war because the Soviet Union told them to.

I think you might be looking at it the wrong way, try looking at it from the angle of the Soviet Union being backed into a limited war while at the same time the US is being backed into the war as well because backing down would be a sign of weakness to the other. Maybe conflict erupts between South Yemen and Oman - the West is backing Oman and the Soviets while backing South Yemen are even more motivated to support the out of fear of losing their Aden base. Neither side can back down based on fear of seeming weak.

This is a more plausible than the evil Soviets twirling mustaches and trying to conquer the world. By the 1980s the castle was crumbling and after getting sucked into a black hole of a war they could not get out of the government was more focused on appearing strong to the outside world while trying desperately to survive and avoid confrontation with the West. Afghanistan dragged on for so long simply not to look weak to the United States.

The angle of both sides getting pulled in by smaller countries in a conflict neither wanted any part of seems more plausible than the Soviets actually instigating the conflict.

[guanotwozero]

The USSR would not want to be seen directly involving itself in Pakistan, but would be keen to see the supply routes dwindle without the conflict spreading outside the region.

So what might work is if cross-border strikes are carried out by the aircraft with (DRA) Afghani Air Force markings, though in reality would be Soviet hardware with Soviet "volunteer" pilots. Attacking/blockading Karachi would win them no friends in Pakistan and more likely to draw in unwelcome outsiders, though it could be that they realise a pro-Soviet government in Islamabad is an impossibility anyway.

If a cross-border air war kicks off, then most likely the US will supply significant materiel to Pakistan, but it's unlikely that US forces would become directly involved. Thus it would become an Afghan-Pakistan war, with Pakistan trying to protect its borders as well as keep the supply routes open. The Afghans/Soviets would not be keen to occupy Pakistani territory, but would mount regular cross-border incursions to destroy assets and deny access. The terrain would largely rule out use of armour or major troop formations other than airborne and mountain troops, so that would also mean US-supplied helicopters and SAMs. It would be a hot war but of limited scope and area.

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel

This is a more plausible than the evil Soviets twirling mustaches and trying to conquer the world. By the 1980s the castle was crumbling and after getting sucked into a black hole of a war they could not get out of the government was more focused on appearing strong to the outside world while trying desperately to survive and avoid confrontation with the West. Afghanistan dragged on for so long simply not to look weak to the United States.

The angle of both sides getting pulled in by smaller countries in a conflict neither wanted any part of seems more plausible than the Soviets actually instigating the conflict.

I agree. For that reason a pre-1980s conflict may be more feasible. To me, the '70s is the most turbulent period of the 'proxy' Cold War, with many conflicts that could have escalated significantly had cool heads not prevailed.

If you start with an unstable country, add oil (or some other strategic asset) or situate it near a major commerce route, then you have most of what you need to draw in outside backers seeking an advantage on the world's stage. Or just denying such an advantage to a rival. Or perhaps you have a firebrand ally who wades into a small war, and you'll badly lose face if you don't support him?