Matrix Games Forums

I found a translated and declassified Soviet piece from 1969 on using Tu-16s to hit NATO air bases with conventional weapons. Pretty interesting.

I found a translated and declassified Soviet piece from 1969 on using Tu-16s to hit NATO air bases with conventional weapons. Pretty interesting.

Colin,

Thanks for this reference. I've added it to the CMANO/CMO unofficial Dropbox reference library.

Unofficial - i.e. not sponsored by WarefareSims, MatrixGames, Slitherine, their employees, relatives, pets or ancestors.

As always, any forum member can have access to this Dropbox resource. Just PM me with your email address.

-Wayne Stiles

Very interesting.

Not least that this Colonel is poking holes in a Major Generals opinions, but the wording "... can hardly be considered correct." is great.

He talks in depth about what the conventional force should do if the war turn nuclear, and about how to keep the nuclear deterrent force protected. But he doesn't address how you make the conventional force look like a conventional force and not send the wrong message to NATO - I guess nuclear armed bombers would be in smaller groups. Not sure.

He also mentions 'auxiliary suspension systems' to increase bomb load. I've never come across this before, I thought bomb loads were more limited by wing loading and lift.

Great insight, thanks.

He also mentions 'auxiliary suspension systems' to increase bomb load. I've never come across this before, I thought bomb loads were more limited by wing loading and lift.

Could this be related to Soviet aircraft rough-field capabilities?

-C

Could this be related to Soviet aircraft rough-field capabilities?

Perhaps, he's discussing dispersion and staging from Front Avn fields so maybe this makes more bases more acceptable.

B

Auxiliary Suspension Systems

I think he's referring to the use of auxiliary bomb racks carried on hardpoints under the wings. This would correspond with the "FAB-250M-54 GPB, 40 x in Bomb Bay + Racks" and "FAB-500M-54 GPB, 26x in Bomb Bay + Racks" loadouts available in Command. Later on, Backfires also had this capability, and there is a picture of one doing so here.

The use of the word 'suspension' shows up several times in the article in the context of 'things suspended from the aircraft', rather than 'part of the landing gear', so I doubt it references rough field capabilities of a rugged undercarriage. There is also a translation of a Soviet Manual on the Maintenance of Bombing Equipment on the TU-16 Aircraft, full of all sorts of switch-by-switch instructions on how to load your Badger. It uses the term suspension in the same way, although, sadly, it doesn't seem to mention the auxiliary bomb racks.


Ready Times

One thing I found very interesting in the original article was the discussion of ready times for the Badgers. He mentions that 'The second strike can be carried out seven to nine hours after the first'. Also, he mentions that if the first strike comes on a winter evening, when there is less daylight than night-time, 'long-range aviation forces take off at minimum intervals and will be able to deliver one or two additional massed strikes during the hours of darkness."

So he expects the Badgers to be able to do a turn-around quite rapidly, and be back over the target once or twice in a long night. That would suggest, in Command terms, a 6-hour ready time (or perhaps a 6-hour quick-turnaround), rather than the 20 hour ready time they currently have.

Now presumably this is for a completely pre-planned operation, where all the targets have been selected, the pilots pre-briefed, and the ordnance guys given warning in advance. An impromptu raid against a new target of opportunity would take longer. Still, it's interesting to see that the Soviets did not consider their bombers to be "once-a-day" assets. A scenario designer could do this with Lua, but a player would have to force his ready time in the editor to simulate this.

Ahh, that makes a good deal of sense

And he did mention the very detailed planning for the second strike as well.