ORBAT Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 4 Frontal Aviation

As part of the Breakthrough battle the front could allocate elements of Frontal aviation in support of the depth fire battle enabling the simultaneous engagement of the enemy throughout his depth and to increase the effectiveness of the engagement of the enemy in the immediate combat zone.

Frontovaya Aviatsiya  FA was the largest component of Soviet Air Power comprising some 5,000 aircraft and 5,000 helicopters distributed across 16 Air Armies.  A Tactical Air Army was an integral part of a Front which for the purposes of my Cold War representation consisted of 2 Combined Arms Armies, 1 Tank Army and 1 Tactical Air Army.

The purpose of Frontal Aviation was to provide Air Support to the front throughout the fronts area of operations and the enemies depth this area can be described as a box approximately 300km wide to 500km deep. In addition to the ability to deliver Air to Ground attack from Aircraft or Helicopters, the Air Army also possessed Reconnaissance, Electronic Warfare, Air Superiority and Transport Assets.

The Primary role was Air Support to the Ground Operation with the Tactical Air Army being subordinate to the Front, the other assets within the Air Army, Fighter Divisions and Reconnaissance Regiments, being used to create the conditions under which this could occur. The principal uses of the Air Armys assets were:

• Striking targets beyond the range of Artillery
• Increasing tempo by adding air delivered ordnance to direct and indirect fires
• adding flexibility through quick response in fluid tactical situations

Composition, Organisation and Equipment

The Various Air Armies composition varied depending on where they were. Based on Suverovs model of the Front and his view on the force composition and structure in the Forward Group of Forces then 16 Air Army would split into two with one supporting each of the two fronts.

An outline composition for an Air Army supporting a single front could look like this:

• 3 Fighter Divisions ( IAD )Mig-23 Flogger, Mig-29 Fulcrum (90% of the Force), 
• 2 Fighter Bomber Divisions (IBAP) Mig 27D Flogger (60%), Su-17 Fitter (40%)
• 1 Independent Air Attack Regiment (OShAP) SU-25 Frogfoot
• 1 Bomber Division (ADIB) Su -24 Fencer
• 3 Attack Helicopter Regiments (OBVP) Mi 24 Hind. Mi-8 Hip
• 1 Fighter Recce Regiment (ORAP) Mig-25R Foxbat, Mig-25BM (ECM) Su-17M4R, Su 24 MR, Su-24MP
• 1 Helicopter Transport Regiment (OVP) Mi-24, Mi8, Mi-6
• 1 Mixed Helicopter Regiment (OVP) Mi-8, Mi-6/26

Aircraft are organised in flights of 4 with 3 Flights to a Squadron (12) and 3 Squadrons to a Regiment  (36) and 3 Regiments to a division (108).  There was some mixing of aircraft types within Squadrons and regiments but in general a regiment tended to operate aircraft of a single type for fighter, Fighter Bomber.  The range of aircraft covers the types that could have been used against the role stated at the back end of the Cold War.

Like Artillery covered in the last Post on Breakthrough operations the great thing about Aircraft is that they are very easy to concentrate on an axis or in support of a mission and can add considerable weight of fire at critical moments in the battle.

weapon systems

A wide range of air to ground munitions were available to fighter ground attack aircraft in the late 80's.  Like NATO the Soviets had been improving the effectiveness of aerial delivered munitions through both precision guidance from the air, precision guidance from the ground and the development of a range of Scatterable mine and submunition capabilities.

The critical developments from the perspective of Breakthrough were those that could be used to break down a formed defence and could be used to replace the dependence on Nuclear weapons seen in the 60’s.  To my mind this puts the focus on the improvement of bombs rather than in developments of Surface to air missiles which because of cost and availability would tend to be used on higher value targets. 

Guided Bombs

The Soviets developed a range of precision guided munitions in the late 70s and by 1979 had deployed a number of 500kg Laser Guided Bombs these included Bunker Busters, HE-Frag and Thermobaric munitions. These systems were used in Afghanistan and by 1987 they had up scaled these to include 1500kg bombs.

Collectively known as KAB (Korrektirujemaja Aviacionnaja Bomba) the weapons have a significant stand off range.  The KAB-500 series having a maximum range of 10 km and can be delivered by MiG-27K, Su-22M3/M4, Su-24M and Su-25. The KAB – 1500 series can be from altitudes of 1 km to 15 km providing a maximum standoff of 18 - 20 km from the higher altitudes with the delivery platforms being primarily the Su 24 during the Cold War. 

• KAB-1500L-Pr-E Penetrating bunker buster with sub calibre war head
• KAB-1500L-F-E Blast Fragmentation warhead
• KAB-1500-OD-E Thermobaric warhead

The LGB - KAB 500 L was deployed from 1979 and the KAB 1500 L from 1987 the weapons used a semi active homer which delivered a 7m CEP they were  Air Designated and I have found no reference to ground designation.  The improved LG variants were not delivered until after the end of the Cold War. 

The 4.5m long KAB-1500L guided bomb is a bit of a beast designed to hit stationary ground and surface targets, these include:

• Railway and Motorway Bridges
• Dams
• Defence Enterprise
• Large Ammunition Depots
• Fuel and Lubricant Storage
• Railway Junctions

In my mind it would also be a useful weapon to deploy against static battlefield targets such as defended positions and as such offers the potential to deliver Nuclear like effects from a more conventional platform. 

The TV Guided KAB 500 KR and KAB 1500TK entered service from 1987 and delivered an improved 4m CEP. The Satellite guided systems were not deployed until 2003 so more Bear Resurgent than Cold War. The SU 24 cleared for 3 KAB 1500 or 7 KAB 500 with the Su 17 capable of carrying 2 KAB 500

Cluster Bombs

The other set of weapons of interest in the Breakthrough context are Cluster Bombs.  Cluster munitions release or eject smaller submunitions and were deployed extensively by all sides during the Cold War, primarily they increased the area of effect of the payload and more efficiently distribute the effects within that area than a single equivalent sized bomb can achieve.  As such they are more efficient at engaging area targets.  The Soviet Union was a pioneer in the development  of the Cluster bomb with use from the 1930's, The principal family of munitions available to them in the Cold War was the RBK 250 family of bombs. Sub Munitions carried include:

• Anti Personnel AO 2.5RT 2.8Kg Pre fragmented, designed to split on impact bounce then explode. 
• Anti Personnel  AO-1 SCh, 
• Anti Personnel PFM-1 2.5 lbs, AP Mine 
• Anti Tank PTAB 2.5, 5lbs Heat
• Airfield Cratering

The RBK Razovaya Bombovaya Kasseta is a single use bomb cassette which could then be loaded with a number of sub munitions generally either the fragmentation or Anti Tank sub munitions.

In the 1990s details of a larger and improved RBK 500 bomb were released with new sub munitions its not clear if these were available in the later years of the Cold War. But if like me you stretch the back end of the Cold War though to 1993 when the Soviets withdrew from Germany then they fit. New sub munitions included:

• AO-2.5 RTM pre fragmented anti personel/anti materiel
• BETAB airfield Cratering cluster bomb
• PTAB-1M anti tank,  2lbs Heat penetrates 9" of steel fin stabilised
• SPBE anti tank, 30 lbs anti tank with EFP warhead, Drouge stabilised
• SPBE-D anti tank

The munitions can be carried by Mig 23/27, 29, Su 17, 24, 25, 27

Command and Control

The Soviet system to control air assets in the fronts area of operations occurred at two levels.  The first of these dealt with the routing of aircraft to and from their missions and the second the allocation of assets to missions and the prosecution and selection of targets.

The Control and Target Identification post was equipped with Radar and signals equipment and communicated with the air assets to control their movement, it was primarily a battlefield air traffic control system which had no role in mission planning. 

The forward air liaison teams deployed to the forward CPs at each level of command from front to regiment and occasional battalion dealt with the target selection and prosecution of engagements. The Air assets like artillery assets could be allocated in support of specific formations and units and I suspect it is these units that received the Forward Air Liaison teams.  Targeting like artillery would be conducted through the direction of assets by the controlling HQ ie the combined arms commander in conjunction with the Liaison team, rather than by request.

The Air Controllers at Regimental level would clear targets and identify friendly troop locations for attacking aircraft, these air controllers were usually experienced Pilots, I have yet to find any evidence of ground target marking capability.  All the teams would be equipped with either BTR Series or MT-LBu command and Observation post vehicles which were supplied to both artillery and air observation parties, the specific BTR 60 variant being the BTR 60R-975.

The Soviets tend to employ aircraft to engage deeper targets and aviation to attack closer targets all though assets of both types will be utilised for pre planned operations and air delivered fire strikes can be used to superimpose fire effect on top of artillery fires.

Modeling and Gaming

The purpose of the research was of course to enable me to expand the Soviet horde to include some air support that could help deliver some serious effects on to the NATO position in the event of a breakthrough battle developing on a table top near me.  To this end I will be adding:

• 2 Su 17 representing two flights of 4 Su 17 equipped with  Kab - 500L and CBUs from the IBAP
• 1 Su 24 representing 1 Flight of 4 Su 24 equiped with 2 Kab - 1500L and CBUs from the ADIB
• 1 BTR 60 Forward Air Control Command and Observation Post

Having spent the time researching the aircraft munitions it would be good to create models with the Weapon load outs required. Since I started  writing this article back in 2014 a number of new weapons sets have been released along with a number of aftermarket resin accessories that enable that to be acheived the main ones I am using are:

• Hasegawa 1/72 Rusian Weapons Set
• Dragon Modern Soviet Aircraft Weapons Set1 Air to Air Missiles
• Dragon Modern Soviet Aircraft Weapons Set 2 Air to Surface Missiless
• Dragon Modern Soviet Aircraft Weapons Set 3 Rockets and Bombs
• ICM Soviet Air to Air Aircraft Armament Set
• ICM Soviet Air to Surface Aircraft Armament Set
• North Star, Kab 500L

For this project the main sets used are the Hasegawa Russia Weapons Set which supplied 2 Kab 1500Ls for the Su 24. The Dragon Modern Soviet Aircraft Weapons set 3, Rockets and Bombs which supplied the CBUs and the North Star Kab-500L set which supplied the load for the Su 17s.

when completed these birds will join my existing Frontal Aviation assets which include:

• 1 Mig 29 representing 1 flight of 4 aircraft from the IAD
• 1 Mig 23 representing 1 flight of 4 aircraft from the IAD
• 2 Su 25 representing 2 flights of 4 aircraft from the OShAP
• 2 Mig 27 representing 2 flights of 4 aircraft from the IBAP
• 5 Mi 24 representing an Attack Helicopter Sqn from the OBVP
• 5 Mi 8 representin an Assault Helicopter Sqn from the OBVP
• 4 Mi 8 representing a Medium Transport Helicopter Sqn from the OVP
• 2 Mi 24 and 1 Mi 6 representing a Heavy Transport Helicopter Sqn from the OVP

key elements of the Air Armies together with the DsHV and a range of Engineer capabilities were amongst those hit by the change to a more defensive doctrine in the late 80's as Glasnost and perestroika started to bite. I generally view this as a politically instigated doctrinal change motivated by the changing political landscape that evolved in the closing moments of the Cold War, in a timeline that would have led to war these changes may well have not occurred, it is also worth remembering that up scaling aircraft assets can be relatively easy given that the ground support and logistic elements can accommodate it. Which I suppose is my justification for playing late Cold War scenarios using assets such as those described in this post.

References:

Books

Soviet Air Land Battle Tactics

Soviet Tactical Aviation

Red God of War

Offensive Operations, Sidorenko, 1970

Tactics the Soviet Way, Rechinko, 1984
Soviet Russian Aircraft Weapons Since WW2

Web

FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army Operations and Tactics

Air Power Australia - Soviet Air to Ground Missiles

Air Power Australia - Soviet Air to Ground Guided Bombs
Wiki Scramble Soviet Air Force Unit Abbreviations
Mig -27
Su-24 @ airforce world
Su-24 @ airvectors
16 Air Army
Su 27 Armaments Latvia Air Bases

Related Posts

ORBAT - Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 1 overview

ORBAT-Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 2 Army Independent Flamethrower Battalions

ORBAT-Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 3 Non Divisional Artillery Assets

TTP-Soviet Breakthrough Attacks

Wargames Unit - Soviet Late 80's, Flame Thrower Company Group

ORBAT - Soviet Late 80's, Breakthrough Capability Part 1, Overview

I have really been struggling with this post primarily because it got way too big as I started working through the problem.  So I have decided to split it into a number of posts each addressing a different aspect of the capability deployed.  By the Cold War the Soviets didn't really refer to units or the operation as Breakthrough but effectively the units and more specifically the ammunition natures that will be covered in these posts would have been used to support attacks against entrenched and fortified positions.

Soviet Doctrine largely trys to avoid dealing with a formed defence through a series of disruptive operations, flanking movements and a pace of advance that should give the enemy little time to prepare.  I had never given much credence to the attack from the line of march theories against a prepared defence as we used to put a fair amount of effort into our defensive works.  If they did not deploy from the line of march, the next point of call for Soviet Doctrine would be a more considered assault launched from a position of close contact. So I decided to spend a bit of time investigating what they would do if forced to attack a formed defence.

A critical component of any Soviet attack would be the massive destructive power that they would want to bring to bear against developed defences before launching any form of ground strike. V G Rezniichenko, editor of Tactics, has a great diagram showing an attack from the line of March by a Soviet Motor Rifle Battalion against a company in defence, at H -12 minutes they drop a 10 Kiloton War Head on the reserve Platoon. Given that fire plan, I as well as the Soviets would have a degree of confidence in carrying that attack.

Because of the effective range of small arms fire it would be quite rare to site platoons much over 500m appart as UK defensive doctrine called for an interlock with rifles which had an effective range of 300m and an overlap of fire with SAWs (GPMG Light Role or LSW) which had an effective range of 600m.  As such a quick look at any of the numerous references on the blast effects of Nuclear weapons will give you an idea of the outcome. Wikipedia has some useful data points for a 1kt device air burst at 200m as follows:

• Blast, 20 psi to 200m 5 psi to 600m
• Heat, Firestorm to 500m, second degree burns to 800m

which will do a lot of damage to the defenders either through blast, burns or asphyxiation as the heat effects will remove most of the oxygen over the area covered by the firestorm.  a number of these effects will casually disregard the fact your in a trench.  So the reserve platoon has gone and I would imagine you have a number of problems in the forward platoons as well.

Throughout the 80's the Soviet doctrine shifted and become much more focused on conventional munitions rather than nuclear. Their aim being to keep the conflict non nuclear for as long as possible  in order to increase NATO decision making problems around nuclear release as the Soviet army became entangled with NATO armies and the German population. I have always struggled to believe how conventional weapons could achieve the same or similar effects to Nuclear Weapons.  Now having looked at it in some detail it is interesting to consider the array of assets they could have deployed to achieve this.  These included:

• Massed conventional artillery fire.
• Precision guided, Thermobaric munitions from large calibre mortars.
• Thermobaric munitions from large calibre MRLs in the indirect fire roll.
• Precision guided, Thermobaric bombs from Aircraft.
• Direct Fire Thermobaric MRLs - the modern flame thrower.
• Direct Fire Thermobaric man portable munitions from hand held rocket launchers and ATGWs.
• Smoke Generators.
• Thermobaric munitions deployed by ballistic missiles.

You can spot the general theme, the Soviets classified Thermobaric systems as WMD, but given the pervasive nature of the deployment of the munition it was fairly clear they intended to use it and viewed it as having a much lower release threshold than Nuclear weapons.  The effects of Thermobaric systems are fairly well documented and a not disimilar story to nuclear as the killers are destructive blast waves, over pressure, heat and a lack of oxygen.

Effects are however much reduced and dependent on size of device, distance from detonation and level of confinement.  The elements that make them more effective and more interesting here as a replacement for nuclear capability  are:

• Deployment through MLRS systems which would start to extend the area covered fairly effectively. 
• The direct fire aspects of the missiles and rocket launchers which puts the warhead in your trench.
• Precision guidance which meant the devices could be sufficiently accurately placed to achieve the desired effects.

These systems would be deployed from a number of arms of service including:

• Frontal Aviation.
• Artillery at Divisional, Army, Front and Strategic Reserve level.
• Chemical Troops primarily at Army and Front level.

a lot of this remained a relatively closely guarded secret and there is little evidence that I have been able to find that lays down the composition of the Chemical troops units, which were the principal providers of the direct fire support.  Evidence from both the Chechen Wars and from Afghanistan clearly outlines the capabilities, the equipment and there utility.  The assumption is similar capability if it existed would have been deployed in a European conflict.  

A reasonably significant amount of data exists on the weapons and when they were first fielded though a couple of assumptions need to be made in order to credibly employ some of the capabilities.

• For economic reasons the later part of the cold war was marked by a shift in Soviet focus to a more defensive posture, what if this had not been the case.
• The reasons and period over which the Soviets were transitioning to war could make a difference to the capabilities deployed particularly where these existed and were not necessarily required in large numbers.

The next few posts in this series will look at the various arms of service and the capability they could deploy in order to influence the Breakthrough battle and some concepts about what the organisations were that fielded the capability and how they might be represented on the Wargames table.  Some time this summer if all goes according to plan we may see it in action.

References:

Jane's Armour & Artillery 2002/2003
Red God of War: Soviet Artillery and Rocket Forces , C Bellamy 1986
The Soviet Afghan War, How a super power fought and lost
Tactics, a Soviet view VG Reznichenko, 1984 DTIC PDF

A 'Crushing' Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny 2000,
Technology and the Second Chechen Campaign: Not all new and not that much by Lester W. Grau
The highly-accurate mega-mortar
Soviet Air to Ground Missiles
Soviet Air to Ground Guided Bombs
SU 24
SU 17
Mig 27
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 4 Artillery

Other Posts of interest

ORBAT-Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 2 Army Independent Flamethrower Battalions
ORBAT-Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 3 Non Divisional Artillery Assets
ORBAT-Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 4 Frontal Aviation

ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 4 Artillery

TTP-Soviet Breakthrough Attacks

ORBAT - Soviet Task Org, Fronts against NORTHAG

ORBAT - Soviet Task Org, Fronts in the Western TVD

Wargames Unit - Soviet Late 80's Flamethrower Company Group

Review - Book, Air Battle Central Europe, Alfred Price, 1986

Richard C over on Cold War Hot Hot Hot gave this such a glowing review that I felt an overwhelming desire to acquire one. It s quite literally another of the Cold War Classic must have titles, given that you are interested in gaming the Air Land component. For me that was one of the critical aspects of warfare in this period, playing the period without it would be like wargaming Afghanistan with no representation of ISTAR, you would be missing one of the key enablers.

Why is this book a gem it explains all facetes of the air battle with amazing clarity, the author an ex officer in the RAF brings both his own experience to bear and the experience of those he interviews. Each of the chapters focuses on a different aspect of air warfare and is underpinned by the knowledge of a serving officer currently flying in that role, which brings with it a fantastic level of detail.

I found the whole thing riveting, despite its association with the Boys in Blue and read it pretty much cover to cover. Having said that the structure of the book with each chapter focusing on a different role makes it a very effective reference vehicle and I have been back to it on numerous occasions since that first read.

The chapters cover:

• The view from the top - Commander 2 ATAF
• Integrating the land air battle a soldiers point of view - G3 Air Staf, HQ NORTHAG
• The air defence battle - F15C, 32 Fighter Sqn USAF
• The long punch - F111E, 79 Tactical Fighter Sqn USAF
• The bridge Droppers - F111F, 494 Tactical Fighter Sqn, USAF
• The Airfield Bashers - Tornado GR1s, 17 Sqn, RAF
• The Carpet Bombers - Tornados, Jagschwader 31, German Air Force
• The Jump Jet Dimension - Harriers, 3 and 4 Sqn, RAF
• The Battlefield Brusiers - A-10, 509th Tactical Fighter Sqn, USAF
• The Intelligence Gatherers - US RF-4C Phantom Recce, 1st Tactical Reconnaissance Sqn, USAF
• The Tank Swatters - British AT Helicopter Regiments, 635 Sqn, British AAC
• The Electronic Foxers - EF 111 Raven, 42 Electronic Combat Sqn, USAF
• The Wild Weasels - F4G and F4E Phantoms of 52 Tactical Fighter Wing, USAF
• Guardians of the Baltic shore - Tornadoes and F104s, Marine Flieger Geshwarder 1 and 2, German Navy
• Protecting the lifeline - No 11 Group, RAF Fighter Command
• Air Battle Central Europe an Overview - This pulls together the information from the preceding chapters in a coherent summary.

I would say this is the most digestible book I have read on the subject, it's sadly the only book I have read and the only one I feel I need to read so comprehensively and effectively does it address the topic. There are some highly useful books on operations and warfare that are right dull reads, this isn't one, if you have an inkling to understand the Air Land dimension in the later stages of the Cold War you need to read this book.  The red covered version is the US release published 1987 and the Blue the UK published 1986, bizarrely I have both but have yet to compare the content.

Richards Review on Cold War Hot Hot Hot is a little more comprehensive than mine and provides an equally ringing endorsement, it's worth a read as well . If you can land a copy on or below £4 its a steal, to be frank its worth a lot more than the second hand price.

 Air Battle Central Europe @ Amazon

Other Book Reviews:

Review-Book, Air Battle Central Europe, Alfred Price

Review- Book, Confrontation, The Strategic Geography of NATO and the Warsaw Pact

Review - Book, Mil Mi 8/Mi - 17 Rotary Wing Work Horse and War Horse

Review - Book, A History of Soviet Airborne Forces 

Review - Book, Soviet Tactical Aviation

A History of Soviet Airborne Forces

Soviet Tactical Aviation

Armies of NATO's Central Front

Red Thrust, Central Front

The Soviet Afghan War, How a Super Power Fought and Lost

Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army

Soviet Air Land Battle Tactics

The Military Balance

Encyclopaedia of the Modern British Army

The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Manoeuvre

First Clash

The Third World War

The British Army in Germany

The Cold War Bookstore contains links to over 60 Cold War titles covered in my book list

Posted with Blogsy

ORBAT - The RAF in Germany in The 1980s

The aim of this post is to provide an overview of RAF Germany in the mid to late 80's. It will be part of a series of posts that starts to examine the NATO context of Air Land warfare, developed in the Air Land Battle and the Follow on Forces Attack doctrines of the late 80s. Without  consideration of these you are not really representing warfare as it would have manifested on the Central front at this time. The aircraft of RAF Germany contributed to 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force (2ATAF), this included Dutch, German, US and Belgian Squadrons.  In addition to the forward deployed units the aircraft strength would have been increased in time of War by reinforcement from France, the UK and US.

During the period Squadron size varied between 10 - 18 aircraft organised in flights of 4 although this did vary. Actual squadron size would appear to have been follows:

• Harrier Squadrons in Germany 18 aircraft, from 1977, prior to 1977 12.
• Puma Squadrons, 16 aircraft,
• Chinook Squadrons10 aircraft,
• Tornado, Jaguar and Phantom Squadrons, 12 aircraft.

There were originaly 3 Squadrons of Harriers 3, 4 and 20, each of 12 aircraft. 20 was disbanded in 1977 and the remaining aircraft distributed amoungst the other two Germany based Squadrons.

The principal Aircraft deployed and their primary missions were:

• Phantoms FGR 2, until 1992 then Tornado F3 Interceptor/Fighter, 2 Squadrons, 19 & 92, RAF Wildenwrath
• Tornado GR 1, low level Strike at Depth Targets, 7 Squadrons, No's 9, 14, 17 & 31 RAF Bruggen, No's 15, 16 & 20 RAF Laarbruch.
• Harrier GR3 untill 1990 then GR 5, Close Air Support and Battlefield  Air Interdiction to 1 BR Corps/NORTHAG, 2 Squadrons No's 3 & 4 RAF Guterslough, dispersed on War
• Jaguar GR1 then Tornado GR1, photo Reconaisance, 1 Squadron, No 2 RAF Laarbruch
• Chinook CH-47, 1 Squadron, No18, RAF Guterslough, dispersed on War
• Puma S330, 1 Squadron, No 230, RAF Guterslough, dispersed on War

Whilst this was the RAFs contribution, air superiority aircraft could come from any of the National Air Forces supporting 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force.  Equally strike and Close Air Support would be drawn from other NATO nations as part of the 2ATAF plan and the RAF could also end up supporting other nations.

Having said that for my British Forces I'll be using Harrier GR3's for CAS with some Tornadoes GR1s mixed in for Air Mobile operations in Depth. I'll use a Phantom FGR2 for my Air Supeiority marker and look to incorporate US F-4G Wild Weasel Phantoms and A10 Warthogs as part of the overall CAS/BAI package. 

108 A10s were forward deployed with the 81st Tactical fighter wing which had 6 18 Aircraft squadrons in the UK but would have forward deployed to Germany in time of War, with 3 Squadrons supporting 2 ATAF.  This could included working from dispersed locations and they were a significant element of the Allied Anti Tank effort.

The F-4Gs belonged to the 52nd Tactical fighter Wing which comprised 3 Squadrons each consisting of 8 F4G and 16 F-4E Phantoms, their primary role being the destruction of enemy air defence assets

Prior to the Tornado entering service in 1980 RAF Strike aircraft would have been Jaguars and Buccaneers and CAS/BAI provided by Harrier GR1 with the Hunter being the CAS/BAI platform of choice prior to 1969.

So for my NATO air land battle component I intend to put together a package that looks like:

• 2 Flights Harrier GR5
• 2 Flights A10
• 1 Flight F-4G Wild Weasel
• 2 Flights Tornado
• 1 Flight Phantom FGR2
• Army Air Corps Aviation Regiment

 This I imagine will take a while.

The A10s here are from the collection of the Guilds Panzerfaust 200 and were snapped in action as part of this years Waidhaus Gap game.

Other Posts of Interest

Orbat - Soviet Task Org, Fronts against Northag

Orbat - 1980's British, Army Air Corps Aviation Regiment

Review - Models 1/72, Airfix Harrier GR3

Review - Models 1/72, Airfix Lynx AH1

Review - Models 1/72, Airfix Westland Aerospatiale Gazelle

References:

The Modern Royal Air Force @ Amazon

Armies of NATO's Central Front @ Amazon

Harrier.org.uk

RAF Timeline

Squadron History of Current Squadrons

Air Battle Central Europe @ Amazon

Close Air Support and The Soviet Threat

Air Land Battle, Center for Naval analysis

Follow on Forces Attack, DTIC Paper

Flieger Web F-4 Phantom II

Posted with Blogsy