![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Azerbaijani, or Kazakh? I don't actually recall the book saying, but I always assumed the latter. - Joseph 15:42, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
It was enormously interesting to read of Tom Clancy's fictional take on NATO in the 1980's. In Patrick Robinson's latest book, NATO seems to have disappeared a few years into this new millennium. Unilateralism has become rampant, and countries are warring over access to oil - forget about a free-market in distribution.
Losers in the war are understandably unhappy about the loss of oil supplies. One country head, the President of the US, says in a public broadcast that his nation is about to declare Saudi oil a global asset. Moreover, the US and its allies might rule that the Saudis can no longer be trusted to act as custodians of such a global asset.
It's a thought that deserves discussion.
"...that the mobility granted by modern armor means that the Soviet doctrine of a massed thrust achieving a breakthrough of the enemy lines is a fiction--the enemy can withdraw and reform its lines too easily to break..."
Has Clancy ever studied World War II? Germany's advances in France and the Soviet Union (before the winter set in) were because of massive armor breakthroughs. Cauldron battles ensue, and the enemy is decimated. The defenders are actually in a weak position, for they have to spread out their armor divisions, not knowing where an attack will take place. GreatGatsby 21:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen mention of this anywhere, but Red Storm Rising is very similar to Sir John Hackett's "The Third World War", which was published a few years before. RSR is a more narrative and entertaining style, but the similarities are rather marked. I would not be surprised if Hackett's book inspired RSR. Kd5mdk 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The Harold Coyle book, Team Yankee, uses Hackett's Third World War scenario. Not Clancy's Red Storm Rising — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.146.58 ( talk) 19:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I added informaiton about this game to the article's main page. Here are more details: The video game went through two verions 0.9 and now 1.0. It was designed by the best modders in the Close Combat community and really hit the authenticity in settings and backgrounds. One of the places to download it is: http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=58 Screenshots can be seen here(all modern combat shots are for Red Storm Rising): http://s91.photobucket.com/albums/k315/Ryz4000/Close%20Combat/
The book, IMO, is not that good in military details. Soviet T-80, for example, have diesel engines (!) and manual loading (!!) , Alpha subs in reality have smaller crews, liquid-metal reactors, Soviet SAMs are suddenly falling behind US aircraft and so on, More important, Soviet military looks like Iraqi in 2003 (it wasn't that bad, for sure), both technically and personnel. It may be good book, but not accurate in this area.
His lack of knowledge about the Soviet workings is obviously explained, as the only people in a position to know that (outside the USSR) were in NATO intelligence forces, and wouldn't exactly share it with him. As for the nukes, he fudged a bit there because the point of the book is to examine a non-nuclear, completely conventional war. A book where the USSR just nukes the hell out of everyone would be no fun to read. Also, as for the Iraqi comparison, please clarify. Comparing the Iraqi army in 2003 with the 1980s Soviet army is like comparing a little boy holding an old wooden sword with a knight riding around in full plate on a horse with a gleaming longsword.-- TelevisedRevolution 03:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to raise a huge question mark at the assertion that the Battleships used in the 91 Gulf War proved the viability of the platform. In the Gulf War the Battleships were deployed (with huge numbers of escorts for anit ship, anti mine and anti air defenses) in a limited capacity for bombardment support. In Red Storm Rising, the Battleships were allowed to steam into close visual range of a Soviet heavy gun position and got off scott free by act of plot. If anything, it proved that Battleships were good at sucking up huge amounts of resources to protect them as they were incapable of protecting themselves...and were relativly unimpressive in their abilities, which could be matched by other platforms. (C O'Farrell 3 November 2006)
First: the original M1 vs. the T80 was about an even battle. T80 had a more powerful 125mm smoothbore gun, but less armor. M1 had superior Chobham armor, but only the L7 105mm rifled. Speed was essentially the same (albeit with different technology), likewise for fuel consumption. With a matchup that similar, the advantage goes to the defender. This is a major force multiplier here, especially considering the massive US superiority in defensive weaponry: land-based ATGMs (both manportable and light crew-operated), and ground support from A-10s and Apaches. The Frogfoot was never fielded in great enough numbers to make a definitive impact in such a campaign, and the A-10 posessed a cheap, reliable low-level tank-busting capacity that I don't think the Soviets would have been able to easily counter. The Soviet doctrine of mass over manuever posesses a critical flaw, in that it relies on attrition to suppose that the US wouldn't be able to kill tanks as fast as they could be poured into an area to exploit a gap. I think in terms of survivability the Apache would, though, fall very much behind the Hind; current experience in Iraq has shown it to be surprisingly and lamentably fragile against even small-arms ground fire.
Second: While Soviet naval technology was largely tasked to coastal-defense, that doesn't mean they lacked blue water AS capacity and they certainly wouldn't have been foolish enough to ignore the importance of the GIUK gap. Their carrier technology was garbage, admitted, but the home field advantage of land-based Bear-Bs for detection and ASM-launching supersonic Backfires for ultra-long-distance strike made that almost entirely unnecessary anyway. In the book, the SLCM strike on the Backfire bases feels very much like a deus ex machina inserted to create a hypothetical dovetail in plot elements rather than a real strategic insight. In a real situation, I concur with Clancy in seriously doubting the ability of the carrier battle groups to defend themselves in the face of massive daily ASM attack with minimal ability to retailiate. With good realtime SIGINT/RADINT, large numbers of supersonic missile carriers armed with cruise ASMs, and good planning, I can definitely see both the carrier battle groups and the convoys themselves being smashed to pieces with little possible recourse for the US. Abrams don't run on water, y'know. Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./ Brilliant Acts) 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Could we get a section on the book's criticisms?
I suggest splitting the coumputer games section into a separate article, Red Storm Rising (computer game). SharkD 03:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Where did the information about the computer game go? I can not find it in this article... 217.157.0.162 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Tc2rsr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that although it never specifically says what year Red Storm Rising takes place, it's possible to make inferences. For example, the scene where Toland and Marine Col. Chuck Lowe watches Alexander Nevsky is May 30. The day after, a Thursday, the Kremlin bomb detonates. This means that Storm takes place in either 1984 or 1990. 1984 is more logical, but impossible, as the AP bulletin, dated January 31st, near the start of the book, makes references to the " 1984 Mexico City Disaster". Thus, it can be inferred that Red Storm Rising takes place in 1990. Sandy of the CSARs 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
~If that were the case wouldn't the US Army be fielding M1A1 tanks instead of M1s?-- 70.185.161.230 03:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
~~Should be, but maybe Clancy didn't know about their deployment schedule. Perhaps he didn't foresee them becoming operational that early. Either that, or he wasn't paying adequate attention. 75.27.232.227 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare ( talk)Or perhaps, as many writers do, he assigned RSR a year and didn't bother to use a calender. NuclearWarfare ( talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The American forces stationed in Germany would not be using M1A1s in 1990. In Fred Franks' "Into the Storm", he mentioned that in the Saudi desert his Corps was getting fielded M1A1s, and passing the M1s over to the Marines. Montizzle ( talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The map is clearly in need of a redesign. It indicates countries such as Japan, Taiwan (RoC) and the republic of (South) Korea as being "NATO NEUTRAL" while none of these countries were NATO members -- and only Japan and Korea are mentioned in the book in passing. Similarly, Australia and New Zealand are designated as NATO participants in the conflict, when neither of them are NATO members, nor were they even mentioned at all.
Also -- Soviet control in Norway should be extended further south, IIRC, as Soviet forces made it as far as Andoya and/or Bodo. A character observes that NATO forces were "trading space for time" in Bavaria, so additional Soviet control should be indicated in southern Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.164.34 ( talk) 17:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
~ Well, when it comes to Bodø, it's not really occupied, it's under heavy air strikes. The occupation of Andøya should be shown, I do agree to that. But Bodø is never occupied.
The article needs several sections to be really complete. First, a description of critical reactions and public impact. Second, a mention of the pseudo-coauthor credited in Clancy's preface. Finally, a mention of the Harpoon game that drove the strategic decisions of the book (as referenced in Clancy's preface). Wellspring ( talk) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been rereading RSR, and it clearly says NAS Keflavik has a "runway 9" There is a runway 11/29 but no direct east-west runway according to the airport's article. There is also mentioned a "triangle between the runways" since there are only two--unless I've been misled in math class, the two runways cannot form a triangle--there is one formed by possibly a taxiway or access road but not a third runway. 75.62.47.83 ( talk) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You are a stickler for detail. I suggest if this concerns you, then you have problems. This is a work of fiction. Try not to hold it against Tom Clancy because he got the runways wrong. -- 121.218.5.31 ( talk) 11:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've finished RSR the 2nd time, but just now I realized Alekseyev sometimes is described as a Four-Star-General. But the General Colonel does have actually only three stars, and it's not even an allegory, because the rank is not comparable to the US **** or German **** for example. The Army General in fact is ****, but it's mentioned in no word, that he was promoted, even not after becoming CINC-West.
So, did Tom Clancy misunderstand the rank levels? Of course, a Soviet General Major has one star, opposed to the US Major General having **. The same with General Lieutenant (**) and Lieutenant General (***). What do you think? -- 87.78.67.5 ( talk) 23:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Spectrum HoloByte did not develop Harpoon (or become Three-Sixty Pacific). Possibly developers from MicroProse split off to become Three-Sixty Pacific, but I couldn't find any references to indicate this was the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 ( talk) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Section had been tagged for Original Research for over a year. Below is the original version of the section prior to the removal of unsourced information. Feel free to reincorporate any of this information with appropriate references. Doniago ( talk) 13:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Major themes
|
---|
==Major themes==
This techno-thriller is an examination of a conventional ground war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Clancy suggests that several conventional ideas about a ground conflict between modern armies are wrong. For example, he proposes that munitions expenditures would be far higher than projected; that combat helicopters like the AH-64 Apache and the Mi-24 Hind are not nearly as survivable as projected; that the mobility granted by modern armor means that the Soviet doctrine of a massed thrust achieving a breakthrough of the opposing front is ill-founded because the enemy lines can withdraw and reform rather than break; and modern air power can only dominate a battlefield in the absence of an opposing modern air force. ![]() Clancy also incorporated the rumoured F-19 "Frisbee" stealth fighter into his plot. The existence of stealth aircraft was an open secret among aerospace watchers in the 1980s, but was highly classified at the time the novel was written. In actuality, computers of the day were not powerful enough to design the F-19's curved surfaces, resulting instead in the simpler and more angular F-117 Nighthawk. [1] The 1991 Persian Gulf War, although far more of a mismatch than a late-1980s NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict would have been, did provide some evidence for Clancy's hypotheses. The U.S. Army's Apaches proved more vulnerable to ground fire than had been predicted, and by the war's end the majority of close air support was being delivered by the more heavily armored A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft. [2] [3] Fittingly, Clancy identifies the A-10 as being a key weapon in his Red Storm Rising scenario. He even has the Russian armored forces dub it the "Devil's Cross" due to its ability to destroy many tanks before being driven off by SAMs and MANPADs, and due to the Russians' perception of its profile, from an angle, as similar to that of the Russian Orthodox cross. His predictions on the high rate of munitions expenditure also appears to have been borne out—even though the initial attack on Iraq was short, it drained U.S. arsenals to an alarming extent, forcing the Pentagon to undertake a crash program to rebuild stocks of smart bombs. [4] Evidence for the prediction of high expenditures of munitions was already available from the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In this conflict both sides consumed munitions so rapidly that within one week of the start of combat, both the United States and the Soviet Union had to airlift munitions to their respective client states (Israel for the U.S., Egypt and Syria for the Soviet Union) to avoid a collapse of their respective armed forces. Another point of interest is the use of America's Iowa-class battleships, which in the novel are sent to Iceland to support the United States Marines during their amphibious landing and air assault. The effective use of battleships in modern war was demonstrated during the 1991 Gulf War, when the Missouri and Wisconsin shelled shore-based artillery sites, anti-ship missile facilities, and Iraqi troop concentrations arrayed along the coasts of Iraq and Kuwait, and on Faylaka Island. In the novel there is little mention of operations by special forces, such as American Navy SEALS and Army Rangers. This is particularly striking considering Clancy's interest in this area. The only special forces groups mentioned are the Soviet Spetsnaz, German GSG-9, Marine Force Recon and British SAS groups in the opening hours of the conflict and a limited British Royal Marine presence on Iceland several weeks after the Soviet invasion. Many strategists suggest that in an all-out war of this kind, units such as these would be used to disrupt various opponents' strategic and tactical operations. In the conflict described in the novel, Special operation teams could have been used to harass Soviet air operations in Norway. Clancy's descriptions of NAS Keflavik, Iceland, and the surrounding area were not accurate. Furthermore, the Soviet barge carrier featured in the book was an existing ship, Yulius Fuchik. |
He is a fighter pilot, decent role in Patriot Games (played by Samuel L Jackson) (both book and movie). He is a definite member of the Jack Ryan universe, and also has a very minor role in Red Storm Rising. Wfoj3 ( talk) 23:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the Daily Mail link up the page and given it a paragraph, but I'm not sure whether "political significance" is the most appropriate title for this section: I was initially intending to title it "real-world significance", but that doesn't seem to be quite right either. Any suggestions...? ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"and is unique for depicting the conflict as being fought exclusively with conventional weapons, rather than escalating to the use of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear warfare." Been a while since I read the book. BUT to my recollection the book / war with a Russian desire to escalate to tactical Nuclear weapons use, but unable to due to loss of middle portion of chain of Control for Nuclear Weapons Authorization. Due to this loss & in ability, shifts to a start of peace talks. Feel like point this out. NOT certain. Wfoj3 ( talk) 12:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Azerbaijani, or Kazakh? I don't actually recall the book saying, but I always assumed the latter. - Joseph 15:42, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
It was enormously interesting to read of Tom Clancy's fictional take on NATO in the 1980's. In Patrick Robinson's latest book, NATO seems to have disappeared a few years into this new millennium. Unilateralism has become rampant, and countries are warring over access to oil - forget about a free-market in distribution.
Losers in the war are understandably unhappy about the loss of oil supplies. One country head, the President of the US, says in a public broadcast that his nation is about to declare Saudi oil a global asset. Moreover, the US and its allies might rule that the Saudis can no longer be trusted to act as custodians of such a global asset.
It's a thought that deserves discussion.
"...that the mobility granted by modern armor means that the Soviet doctrine of a massed thrust achieving a breakthrough of the enemy lines is a fiction--the enemy can withdraw and reform its lines too easily to break..."
Has Clancy ever studied World War II? Germany's advances in France and the Soviet Union (before the winter set in) were because of massive armor breakthroughs. Cauldron battles ensue, and the enemy is decimated. The defenders are actually in a weak position, for they have to spread out their armor divisions, not knowing where an attack will take place. GreatGatsby 21:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen mention of this anywhere, but Red Storm Rising is very similar to Sir John Hackett's "The Third World War", which was published a few years before. RSR is a more narrative and entertaining style, but the similarities are rather marked. I would not be surprised if Hackett's book inspired RSR. Kd5mdk 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The Harold Coyle book, Team Yankee, uses Hackett's Third World War scenario. Not Clancy's Red Storm Rising — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.146.58 ( talk) 19:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I added informaiton about this game to the article's main page. Here are more details: The video game went through two verions 0.9 and now 1.0. It was designed by the best modders in the Close Combat community and really hit the authenticity in settings and backgrounds. One of the places to download it is: http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=58 Screenshots can be seen here(all modern combat shots are for Red Storm Rising): http://s91.photobucket.com/albums/k315/Ryz4000/Close%20Combat/
The book, IMO, is not that good in military details. Soviet T-80, for example, have diesel engines (!) and manual loading (!!) , Alpha subs in reality have smaller crews, liquid-metal reactors, Soviet SAMs are suddenly falling behind US aircraft and so on, More important, Soviet military looks like Iraqi in 2003 (it wasn't that bad, for sure), both technically and personnel. It may be good book, but not accurate in this area.
His lack of knowledge about the Soviet workings is obviously explained, as the only people in a position to know that (outside the USSR) were in NATO intelligence forces, and wouldn't exactly share it with him. As for the nukes, he fudged a bit there because the point of the book is to examine a non-nuclear, completely conventional war. A book where the USSR just nukes the hell out of everyone would be no fun to read. Also, as for the Iraqi comparison, please clarify. Comparing the Iraqi army in 2003 with the 1980s Soviet army is like comparing a little boy holding an old wooden sword with a knight riding around in full plate on a horse with a gleaming longsword.-- TelevisedRevolution 03:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to raise a huge question mark at the assertion that the Battleships used in the 91 Gulf War proved the viability of the platform. In the Gulf War the Battleships were deployed (with huge numbers of escorts for anit ship, anti mine and anti air defenses) in a limited capacity for bombardment support. In Red Storm Rising, the Battleships were allowed to steam into close visual range of a Soviet heavy gun position and got off scott free by act of plot. If anything, it proved that Battleships were good at sucking up huge amounts of resources to protect them as they were incapable of protecting themselves...and were relativly unimpressive in their abilities, which could be matched by other platforms. (C O'Farrell 3 November 2006)
First: the original M1 vs. the T80 was about an even battle. T80 had a more powerful 125mm smoothbore gun, but less armor. M1 had superior Chobham armor, but only the L7 105mm rifled. Speed was essentially the same (albeit with different technology), likewise for fuel consumption. With a matchup that similar, the advantage goes to the defender. This is a major force multiplier here, especially considering the massive US superiority in defensive weaponry: land-based ATGMs (both manportable and light crew-operated), and ground support from A-10s and Apaches. The Frogfoot was never fielded in great enough numbers to make a definitive impact in such a campaign, and the A-10 posessed a cheap, reliable low-level tank-busting capacity that I don't think the Soviets would have been able to easily counter. The Soviet doctrine of mass over manuever posesses a critical flaw, in that it relies on attrition to suppose that the US wouldn't be able to kill tanks as fast as they could be poured into an area to exploit a gap. I think in terms of survivability the Apache would, though, fall very much behind the Hind; current experience in Iraq has shown it to be surprisingly and lamentably fragile against even small-arms ground fire.
Second: While Soviet naval technology was largely tasked to coastal-defense, that doesn't mean they lacked blue water AS capacity and they certainly wouldn't have been foolish enough to ignore the importance of the GIUK gap. Their carrier technology was garbage, admitted, but the home field advantage of land-based Bear-Bs for detection and ASM-launching supersonic Backfires for ultra-long-distance strike made that almost entirely unnecessary anyway. In the book, the SLCM strike on the Backfire bases feels very much like a deus ex machina inserted to create a hypothetical dovetail in plot elements rather than a real strategic insight. In a real situation, I concur with Clancy in seriously doubting the ability of the carrier battle groups to defend themselves in the face of massive daily ASM attack with minimal ability to retailiate. With good realtime SIGINT/RADINT, large numbers of supersonic missile carriers armed with cruise ASMs, and good planning, I can definitely see both the carrier battle groups and the convoys themselves being smashed to pieces with little possible recourse for the US. Abrams don't run on water, y'know. Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./ Brilliant Acts) 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Could we get a section on the book's criticisms?
I suggest splitting the coumputer games section into a separate article, Red Storm Rising (computer game). SharkD 03:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Where did the information about the computer game go? I can not find it in this article... 217.157.0.162 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Tc2rsr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that although it never specifically says what year Red Storm Rising takes place, it's possible to make inferences. For example, the scene where Toland and Marine Col. Chuck Lowe watches Alexander Nevsky is May 30. The day after, a Thursday, the Kremlin bomb detonates. This means that Storm takes place in either 1984 or 1990. 1984 is more logical, but impossible, as the AP bulletin, dated January 31st, near the start of the book, makes references to the " 1984 Mexico City Disaster". Thus, it can be inferred that Red Storm Rising takes place in 1990. Sandy of the CSARs 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
~If that were the case wouldn't the US Army be fielding M1A1 tanks instead of M1s?-- 70.185.161.230 03:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
~~Should be, but maybe Clancy didn't know about their deployment schedule. Perhaps he didn't foresee them becoming operational that early. Either that, or he wasn't paying adequate attention. 75.27.232.227 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare ( talk)Or perhaps, as many writers do, he assigned RSR a year and didn't bother to use a calender. NuclearWarfare ( talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The American forces stationed in Germany would not be using M1A1s in 1990. In Fred Franks' "Into the Storm", he mentioned that in the Saudi desert his Corps was getting fielded M1A1s, and passing the M1s over to the Marines. Montizzle ( talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The map is clearly in need of a redesign. It indicates countries such as Japan, Taiwan (RoC) and the republic of (South) Korea as being "NATO NEUTRAL" while none of these countries were NATO members -- and only Japan and Korea are mentioned in the book in passing. Similarly, Australia and New Zealand are designated as NATO participants in the conflict, when neither of them are NATO members, nor were they even mentioned at all.
Also -- Soviet control in Norway should be extended further south, IIRC, as Soviet forces made it as far as Andoya and/or Bodo. A character observes that NATO forces were "trading space for time" in Bavaria, so additional Soviet control should be indicated in southern Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.164.34 ( talk) 17:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
~ Well, when it comes to Bodø, it's not really occupied, it's under heavy air strikes. The occupation of Andøya should be shown, I do agree to that. But Bodø is never occupied.
The article needs several sections to be really complete. First, a description of critical reactions and public impact. Second, a mention of the pseudo-coauthor credited in Clancy's preface. Finally, a mention of the Harpoon game that drove the strategic decisions of the book (as referenced in Clancy's preface). Wellspring ( talk) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been rereading RSR, and it clearly says NAS Keflavik has a "runway 9" There is a runway 11/29 but no direct east-west runway according to the airport's article. There is also mentioned a "triangle between the runways" since there are only two--unless I've been misled in math class, the two runways cannot form a triangle--there is one formed by possibly a taxiway or access road but not a third runway. 75.62.47.83 ( talk) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You are a stickler for detail. I suggest if this concerns you, then you have problems. This is a work of fiction. Try not to hold it against Tom Clancy because he got the runways wrong. -- 121.218.5.31 ( talk) 11:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've finished RSR the 2nd time, but just now I realized Alekseyev sometimes is described as a Four-Star-General. But the General Colonel does have actually only three stars, and it's not even an allegory, because the rank is not comparable to the US **** or German **** for example. The Army General in fact is ****, but it's mentioned in no word, that he was promoted, even not after becoming CINC-West.
So, did Tom Clancy misunderstand the rank levels? Of course, a Soviet General Major has one star, opposed to the US Major General having **. The same with General Lieutenant (**) and Lieutenant General (***). What do you think? -- 87.78.67.5 ( talk) 23:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Spectrum HoloByte did not develop Harpoon (or become Three-Sixty Pacific). Possibly developers from MicroProse split off to become Three-Sixty Pacific, but I couldn't find any references to indicate this was the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 ( talk) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Section had been tagged for Original Research for over a year. Below is the original version of the section prior to the removal of unsourced information. Feel free to reincorporate any of this information with appropriate references. Doniago ( talk) 13:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Major themes
|
---|
==Major themes==
This techno-thriller is an examination of a conventional ground war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Clancy suggests that several conventional ideas about a ground conflict between modern armies are wrong. For example, he proposes that munitions expenditures would be far higher than projected; that combat helicopters like the AH-64 Apache and the Mi-24 Hind are not nearly as survivable as projected; that the mobility granted by modern armor means that the Soviet doctrine of a massed thrust achieving a breakthrough of the opposing front is ill-founded because the enemy lines can withdraw and reform rather than break; and modern air power can only dominate a battlefield in the absence of an opposing modern air force. ![]() Clancy also incorporated the rumoured F-19 "Frisbee" stealth fighter into his plot. The existence of stealth aircraft was an open secret among aerospace watchers in the 1980s, but was highly classified at the time the novel was written. In actuality, computers of the day were not powerful enough to design the F-19's curved surfaces, resulting instead in the simpler and more angular F-117 Nighthawk. [1] The 1991 Persian Gulf War, although far more of a mismatch than a late-1980s NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict would have been, did provide some evidence for Clancy's hypotheses. The U.S. Army's Apaches proved more vulnerable to ground fire than had been predicted, and by the war's end the majority of close air support was being delivered by the more heavily armored A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft. [2] [3] Fittingly, Clancy identifies the A-10 as being a key weapon in his Red Storm Rising scenario. He even has the Russian armored forces dub it the "Devil's Cross" due to its ability to destroy many tanks before being driven off by SAMs and MANPADs, and due to the Russians' perception of its profile, from an angle, as similar to that of the Russian Orthodox cross. His predictions on the high rate of munitions expenditure also appears to have been borne out—even though the initial attack on Iraq was short, it drained U.S. arsenals to an alarming extent, forcing the Pentagon to undertake a crash program to rebuild stocks of smart bombs. [4] Evidence for the prediction of high expenditures of munitions was already available from the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In this conflict both sides consumed munitions so rapidly that within one week of the start of combat, both the United States and the Soviet Union had to airlift munitions to their respective client states (Israel for the U.S., Egypt and Syria for the Soviet Union) to avoid a collapse of their respective armed forces. Another point of interest is the use of America's Iowa-class battleships, which in the novel are sent to Iceland to support the United States Marines during their amphibious landing and air assault. The effective use of battleships in modern war was demonstrated during the 1991 Gulf War, when the Missouri and Wisconsin shelled shore-based artillery sites, anti-ship missile facilities, and Iraqi troop concentrations arrayed along the coasts of Iraq and Kuwait, and on Faylaka Island. In the novel there is little mention of operations by special forces, such as American Navy SEALS and Army Rangers. This is particularly striking considering Clancy's interest in this area. The only special forces groups mentioned are the Soviet Spetsnaz, German GSG-9, Marine Force Recon and British SAS groups in the opening hours of the conflict and a limited British Royal Marine presence on Iceland several weeks after the Soviet invasion. Many strategists suggest that in an all-out war of this kind, units such as these would be used to disrupt various opponents' strategic and tactical operations. In the conflict described in the novel, Special operation teams could have been used to harass Soviet air operations in Norway. Clancy's descriptions of NAS Keflavik, Iceland, and the surrounding area were not accurate. Furthermore, the Soviet barge carrier featured in the book was an existing ship, Yulius Fuchik. |
He is a fighter pilot, decent role in Patriot Games (played by Samuel L Jackson) (both book and movie). He is a definite member of the Jack Ryan universe, and also has a very minor role in Red Storm Rising. Wfoj3 ( talk) 23:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the Daily Mail link up the page and given it a paragraph, but I'm not sure whether "political significance" is the most appropriate title for this section: I was initially intending to title it "real-world significance", but that doesn't seem to be quite right either. Any suggestions...? ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"and is unique for depicting the conflict as being fought exclusively with conventional weapons, rather than escalating to the use of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear warfare." Been a while since I read the book. BUT to my recollection the book / war with a Russian desire to escalate to tactical Nuclear weapons use, but unable to due to loss of middle portion of chain of Control for Nuclear Weapons Authorization. Due to this loss & in ability, shifts to a start of peace talks. Feel like point this out. NOT certain. Wfoj3 ( talk) 12:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)