Originally Posted by GI_JOEJK

I think boris116 is referring to Clancy's books.

that's right!

I can't understand how the same person could be so meiticulous in descriing American Armed Forces and so ignorant while describing "the other guy". This kind of ignorance borders with treason in my book.

I can't understand how the same person could be so meiticulous in descriing American Armed Forces and so ignorant while describing "the other guy". This kind of ignorance borders with treason in my book.

I found red storm to be rather interesting and didnt see any obvious ignorance. He gave plenty of credit to the soviets, in the late middle to late 80s he just thought we were better, which in my opinion we were. <3 the Reagan buildup

Originally Posted by EagleHammer

Is that Like a Fictional War like Red Stort Rising.

yes of course. Its about a limited WW3 conflict that happens in West Germany only, If I remember correctly.

And Island, And The Atlantic

Book was interesting, but poor in professional view. Clancy, despite of being expert in armaments, did not know Soviet Army good enough to make his book reliable.
For example, he:
- Sets a human gun-loader in T-80 tank;
- Arms Soviet infantry with AK-47, despite of AK-74 of most common infantry weapon in 80-ies;
- Puts responsibility of intelligence on KGB, not on GRU, as is it was in reality;
- There were no child excursions on Kremlin in USSR. Especially, in early-early mornings.

wow....MASSIVE thread revive! haha


what you must remember is this

*clancy is, and was always a civilian
*at the time of writing, much was unknown about the soviet military
*it's a work of fiction, meant to entertain

it's a massively entertaining read, and one i go back to re-read regularly.

a similar book IMO is larry bonds "red phoenix", based around a invasion of south korea by the north

I enjoyed reading Red Phoenix though I think I want to read it again since I read it years before serving in South Korea's military. One mistake I remember from Red Phoenix is that it has RoK Air Force A-10s when the RoK Air Forces doesn't have any (though I think it's toyed with the idea of buying some).
I'm not sure when it's supposed to be set but if it's set in the 90's then having the Coup d'Etat as in the story would actually be quite ridiculous.
Other than those I think it was pretty decent.
Cauldron is good except the ending.
Clancy actually predicted that the attack helicopters would have a lower survivability than advertised and that the most effective ground attack would come from A-10s. This has proven to be true.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Clancy actually predicted that the attack helicopters would have a lower survivability than advertised and that the most effective ground attack would come from A-10s. This has proven to be true.

Proven in Iraq, where Iraqi anti-aircraft was little out-of-date. Ground attack planes such as A-10 or Su-25 needs a clear sky and almost none ground mounted anti-aircraft protection. In symmetric battle with modern army efficiency of A-10 would not be high enough, if no clear sky will be achieved.

I think the A-10 will be fine as long as it doesn't have enemy fighters chasing it down and in a situation where the skies are not clear for either side, enemy fighters may not be able to get close to the A-10s operating within the range of friendly SAM coverage. It flies low enough for it to avoid a lock from SAM targeting systems and low enough to confuse radar. In places where the land is not as even as Europe, it will hide in the "shadows" of hills and mountains making it even harder to track.
Also the A-10 can actually take the damage that is claimed while the AH-64 can't.
It's one of those things that the Air Force desperately wants to replace but can't.

We discussed this situation in Latvian forum, also mobile chaingun systems like `Vulcano`, `Gepard`, `Shilka` and `Tunguska` have to be taken in consideration, since such things always will escort armored units. If they woun't be taken out - the attack of A-10 will be quite costly with little efficiency (tanks are pretty tough for 30mm rounds, especially to be wasted. Damaged tank will proceed combat after some repair) and high casualties. In symmetric war any measure has its countermeasure, and so on...