CheckGear

You say: Then you say: If the fact that an enemy will not behave as one expects and Iceland being of strategic importance is a good enough reason to make a DCS map of it, then no, the fact it was a "war that never was" isn't all that relevant. Part of the fascination behind the NATO-Warsaw Pact scenario is the sheer amount of firepower involved, the relative parity of participants, the high-intensity nature of the scenario, and the fact it was a daily risk for almost half a century. Yes, the war never actually happened, but it doesn't make the facts irrelevant. As for the enemy not behaving as one expects, again, one can get carried away with this belief. It's more accurate to say one doesn't know thy enemy as well as one thinks. But that hardly makes the enemy some unpredictable force of nature. The enemy is comprised of living, breathing, human beings and they operate with the same basic level of functionality as we do. They stick to norms and patterns, just like we do. This is why primary sources, such as written Soviet doctrine, as well as their military exercises, are so important to refer to in any discussion on the matter - this is what they're thinking and doing. This idea that you do one thing when training, then suddenly find an extra gear and become this unbelievable foe capable of incredible feats makes for good fiction, but that's not how things actually work in the real world. None of this is to say the enemy would stick strictly to the script, but improvisation is the most they'll do. For the most part, they stick to what's on hand. Same thing with Iceland being of strategic importance. Again, what is the enemy thinking? What is the view from their perspective? From our vantage point, Iceland is very important. Nothing says the Soviets saw it that way. Even if they did, there's even less to suggest they intended to do anything about it. Just because a war breaks out doesn't mean they suddenly start thinking on a higher level. If anything, war breaks people down to their more base levels and instincts and they tend to stick to what they know. When you get down to it, there isn't anything all that unpredictable about the enemy. Case in point - as we prepared to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, a lot of people thought it would be a bloodbath and that the Coalition and the Iraqis would exchange heavy losses. As it turned out, the Iraqis were nowhere near as competent as we thought. We had based our expectations on the Iran-Iraq War, when we should've actually based our expectations on the Arab-Israeli wars. Professional western-style armed forces versus conscript-laden, Eastern-style forces, not armed forces of authoritarian country versus armed forces of another authoritarian country. But I digress. Plausibility, especially in a military simulation, matters as much as functionality. It's been a selling point of these games ever since the first simulation was released. The World War III scenario, along with an attack on Iceland, just doesn't work all that great in light of the facts.

Is it reasonable to, in the long run, expect a Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, and Nimitz-class carrier?

"Nothing ever goes according to plan" means as much as "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." I've already shown how conventional wisdom on a hypothetical NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict is detached from reality. This is not to say some form of military conflict wouldn't be possible, but to say it would take a shape and form we would've never expected. That's where "nothing ever goes according to plan" has some relevance. But this idea that the Soviet would actually shoot themselves in the foot and invade Iceland? That's a stretch among stretches. And yes, a work of fiction, is, ultimately, a work of fiction. There is no evidence invading Iceland was ever on the Soviet radar, as much as it may have made theoretical sense. It need not be said, but Red Storm Rising doesn't count as evidence. Again, it never ceases to amaze me how a work of fiction has made believers out of so many people, all the while completely disregarding primary sources and the real evidence. Nothing ever goes according to plan, but humans are creatures of habit as well and they tend to follow certain patterns.

Great, now we're going to have an "Aviation Boatswain's Mate module?" :lol: What I would really like is a "virtual carrier," complete with fully interactive ready rooms and staterooms, but that's probably too much to ask.

Plausibility for a mid-to-late-'80s Tomcat would be the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, not the GIUK Gap/North Atlantic. The F-14 gained it's reputation fighting Third World air forces, not superpower air forces. It's amazing how a work of fiction influenced thinking on a hypothetical war. There are a number of problems with an "invasion of Iceland" scenario, not least of which is logistics. In order to conduct and sustain an invasion/occupation of Iceland, the Soviets would've needed to ensure their own SLOCs stayed open. This was next to impossible, as the superior air and naval capabilities of NATO would've rendered any attempt to attack Iceland futile. Some people may say the Soviets would've been crazy enough to attempt it, but it's folly to assume your enemy is crazy. They're always smarter than you think. The problem inherent in this thinking is that war with the Soviets was never quite as likely as people believed. It was a "high-risk, low-probability" scenario and many of the characteristics of this hypothetical war were precisely the reason why it was unlikely to occur. Central Europe has long been considered the primary theater of this hypothetical war, but take a step back and look at the big picture - unless you desire heavy losses and a low gain-to-loss ratio, why would you fight your adversary at their strongest point? Furthermore, Soviet priorities weren't exactly what many of us think they were. According to primary sources, the mission of the Soviet Navy were, in order of importance: 1. Strategic nuclear strike; 2. Destruction of enemy naval forces; 3. Support for ground force operations; 4. Interdiction of enemy sea lanes of communication (SLOC) 5. Protection of Soviet SLOCs See how far down the list the SLOC mission is? Yet people like Tom Clancy would have us believe the USSR would engage in a "Second Battle of the Atlantic" the way the Nazi Kriegsmarine did in World War II and even that campaign wasn't nearly as effective as people believe. The list of priorities reflect the defensive posture of the Soviet Navy and how the Soviet Armed Forces as a whole was a land-oriented force. More importantly, not all priorities were equal - preservation of Soviet strategic nuclear forces, particularly the ballistic missile submarines, would've consumed the lion's share of forces. Now, what is for certain is that the Soviets would've also devoted much time and resources to the destruction of NATO carrier groups. This is where the "Badgers," "Backfires," and "Bears" (Oh my!) would come into play. But as I've stated in an earlier post, these were essentially kamikaze missions. The same was true for the Soviet submarines and surface vessels stalking NATO vessels. They would have pretty one or two opportunities to do maximum damage to the NATO carrier groups before they were put down for the count. As stated before, the importance of the SLOC battle has been overstated. In fact, according to analysis conduct as long ago as the '80s, there is very little to suggest that interdiction of the SLOCs was ever a major part of their war planning. As disappointing as it may be for some, protecting those convoys wasn't ever going to be as exciting as some would've hoped. If anything, Soviet exercises and writings emphasized attacking port facilities as opposed to interdiction on the high seas, a mission that would've required their submarines to travel long distances through waters heavily patrolled by NATO anti-submarine forces. They could've damaged port facilities, but it would've come at a substantial cost for relatively low gains. Even if the Soviets chose to wage a full-blown interdiction campaign against North Atlantic shipping, the impact would've been limited. NATO would've had 215 million tons of shipping to utilize at the start of a war in the mid-to-late-'80s. That's a pretty tall order to overcome on the part of forces that aren't anywhere near as capable as we believed. I could go on forever here, as this is all fascinating stuff, but I'll end it with this - the Soviets may not have known the facts I've recited to you, but they knew enough to be afraid. That's in large part why they never challenged us on the high seas and why their military as a whole had a strategically defensive, if a tactically offensive, mindset. While NATO prepared to take the fight to the enemy, they would always be hindered by the fear of nuclear exchange, as well as the realization they lacked the ability to wage a long-term struggle for the Soviet bastions and attacks on places like the Kola Peninsula. And none of that would matter - the North Atlantic convoys would make it to Europe because the Soviets devoted their resources to protecting their SSBNs. The Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe would eventually lose steam and the East would either lose the war or sue for peace. That's how it would've went down. And that's why it would've never happened. Nobody wages war against someone while seeking to encounter stiff resistance. More relevant to this F-14 module, this is also the reason why I want to see the World War III scenario put to rest. Permanently. It didn't happen and it was never going to happen. Time to devote efforts towards something more plausible.

It'd be nice to have a training map like Miramar or Fallon in addition to a theater of war.

GIUK Gap/Norwegian Sea has been done many times as well in the past. The more I learn about the true capabilities of the Soviet Armed Forces, the more "disappointed" I become. By no means were they capable of anything Tom Clancy, Harold Coyle, or all those writers and wargame designers made them capable of. They lacked the professionalism that would've allowed them to invade West Germany or Norway and hold territory. Their equipment, for all it's ruggedness, was still inferior to even equivalent Western platforms and the lack of training ensured they would've been incapable of making any meaningful impact on the battlefield. With regards to naval aviation, their ability to successfully attack carriers is contingent on their ability to find them. The Soviets relied extensively on reconnaissance platforms such as the Tu-95 "Bear-D" and submarines and surface vessels that'd be shadowing them. When war comes, these vessels were pretty much on a suicide mission - submarines would engage with torpedoes or even attempt to ram the carriers, as there was no use in running away. Surface vessels would be sitting ducks, so they too would resort to ramming. The bombers like the "Badgers" and "Backfires" were on kamikaze missions - the likelihood of them returning to base after a strike was very low and the air crews were well aware of it. Planning for flying out to the target was very carefully conducted, but plans for returning home were very rudimentary and aircrews were essentially expected to find their own way home. In light of this, one has to ask themselves if the Soviets would've actually committed their Sunday punchers to the war in this manner. Reality has a way of changing the way people do things. These are but a few examples of what the Soviet military was thinking and what they were capable of. Needless to say, it's not what we've been told to believe all these years. Bad the "balloon" gone up, I think the end result would've been messy and surprising. But I'm beginning to believe it would've gone from being the mother of all battles to the mother of all letdowns. I can live with a Sea of Japan/Okhotsk/Korea map.

We've seen the North Atlantic featured in just about every warfare game released since the beginning of time. Much of the desire to see the North Atlantic again is rooted in nostalgia rather than it working as a good theater of play. It's time for some new places. If you study U.S. naval strategy in the late Cold War years, you'll find the North Pacific was just as relevant, perhaps more, as the North Atlantic was in planning for general war with the Soviet Union. In fact, it could be said the North Pacific was more crucial, as targets on the USSR homeland were well within striking distance in places like Vladivostok and Sakhalin. In the North Atlantic, a carrier would have to make it all the way up the Norwegian Sea and around the North Cape to be able to do the same time. Likewise, the Soviet air and naval forces didn't have to come out a long way in the Pacific to be a threat to U.S. forces or our allies in the region. I enjoyed the "North Pacific Shootout" scenario in CMANO. I want to see more scenarios like this, the only difference being the opportunity to experience it inside the cockpit of an F-14.

Let them take however much time they need. They deserve to do the best they can; we deserve the best they offer!

In other words, you just went through the trouble of proving why an invasion of Iceland is implausible, as well as the Soviets ever interdicting the SLOCs. They'd be stuck defending their SSBNs and fighting our carrier and surface forces in the Norwegian Sea, if they ever decided to venture out that far. Anyway, my preference for the North Pacific is because we've seen too much of the GIUK Gap/North Atlantic in other games. The North Pacific allows us to play out the "Vampire! Vampire!" scenarios, as well as directly target the Soviet homeland without having to fight our way up north to the Kola Peninsula.

Ever play Fleet Defender? Authenticity, immersion, all those big things that make a game enjoyable. Interestingly enough, the F-14 actually spent more time in places like the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and North Pacific Ocean than the famed North Atlantic. There are plenty of targets in the North Pacific and the scenario is far more plausible. The likelihood of the Soviets actually invading Iceland depends heavily on how much brandy Tom Clancy put into his coffee. :lol:

If we have a "defend the fleet" scenario, then I hope its in a North Pacific setting. We've seen the North Atlantic one too many times.

Standard load-out, at least during the Cold War days, was two Phoenix, three Sparrow, and two Sidewinders.

To build upon what you said (which is all legit), I'm currently reading a book about the military history of U.S.-Iraq relations. It mentions an incident on 9/11/96 in which a USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon executed an evasive maneuver so violent it's structural backbone needed to be replaced. People often forget aircraft are essentially defying the laws of physics when they fly. The amount of stress and strain that places on even a strong piece of machinery like an airplane is tremendous.

I'm on the verge of tears seeing this. I've wanted to be a naval aviator since I was a child. That dream never came true, but at least I can live it virtually. :pilotfly:

For everyone who keeps calling for LNS to hurry up, just remember, you're going to be very disappointed the first time you notice a glaring bug in the module. Just give them time and space to do the job. We haven't even paid for anything, so don't have anything thing to leverage anyway.

I hope Leatherneck takes all the time in the world. I want this module to be absolutely perfect! No rushing allowed!

I'm sorry if I'm behind the times, but will the module feature ALL Tomcat squadrons?

In Top Gun, they did. It was LT Thomas "Iceman" Kazanski and LTJG Ronald "Slider" Kerner's squadron. :lol:

VF-111, VF-21 and VF-154 circa 1986 - 1990, and VF-21 and VF-154 again, circa 1993 - 1996.

You don't have to hear it, because it doesn't work that way. When an aircraft on approach "calls the ball," they don't identify themselves with their radio callsign. They announce their aircraft modex number. The call goes (in the case of an F-14 "201, Tomcat ball, 4.3."

These are some awesome videos! This was the peak of U.S. naval aviation.

As stated before, this episode of Sea Wings was filmed during the work-up period prior to the USS Abraham Lincoln's 1995 WESTPAC/Persian Gulf deployment. The air wing complement was: CVW-11 VF-213 "Black Lions" - F-14A Tomcat VFA-22 "Fighting Redcocks" - F/A-18C(N) Hornet VFA-94 "Mighty Shrikes" - F/A-18C(N) Hornet VA-95 "Green Lizards" - A-6E/KA-6D Intruder VAQ-135 "Black Ravens" - EA-6B Prowler VAW-117 "Wallbangers" - E-2C Hawkeye VS-29 "Dragonfires" - S-3B Viking HS-6 "Indians" - SH-60F/HH-60H Sea Hawk VQ-5 DET. B "Sea Shadows" - ES-3A Shadow VRC-30 DET. 3 "Providers" - C-2A Greyhound Definitely the era of the "super" air wings. Today's air wings pale in comparison to what we had back then.

This is where the bureaucratic ugliness of the military rears it's head. Why not disband either VF-41 or VF-103 instead? It's a relic of a bygone era. They didn't stop making Tomcat/naval aviation-related documentaries after Sea Wings, but very few of them ever equaled the level of quality that the older documentaries possessed. For me, it's nice to have a "snapshot" of this particular era. I don't think anybody in that documentary ever thought our country would be where it's at right now.

Yep, the decision to keep the Black Aces but not the Jolly Rogers was definitely bizarre, looking back on it. Indeed. Why not stick to calling themselves the "Sluggers?" It seems real rich to call yourself by another team's name.