Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealhead
The B-52s suffered heavy losses because the higher ups where forcing them to fly the exact same flight paths mission after mission also they where flying an already obsolescent manner of attack partly because they where flying older B-52Ds and Fs which never had the NOE system installed that the B-52Gs and Hs had from around 1970 they did want to risk the latest models on a type of mission that insures large loses(they cant give away their NOE tactics) I also speculate that they used the older WWII style attacks in Vietnam because they knew that the Soviets would study the NV radar and had they flown NOE missions in Gs and Hs it would have been a windfall to the Soviets.You are correct that the B-52 is obsolete in the old type bomber role something that was never the primary mission of H and G model 52s I doubt you know for certain what you are talking about to be frankly honest a B-52H can do what several fighters can do and has a much better loiter ability as well.And Dr.Strange Love is accurate form the interior details but they did not show an important part of the early G and H models weapons systems the "Hound dog" cruise missile AGM-28 which was supposed to blow wholes into Soviet air defense networks(this weapon had a nuclear warhead also preventing its use in Vietnam just one would wiped out 90% of the radar grid up north I bet) The B-52 is the ultimate adapter even the B-2 can not make this claim nor the B-1B both are more costly and can carry and loiter for less time.
|
I see you suscribe to the simplistic notion that SAC HQ was responsible for all the heavy losses in Linebacker II, well hindsight is always 20/20. SAC planners had two choices: fly high and avoid the AAA/MIG threat or fly low and avoid the SAM threat. Given the fact that US tactical bombers were routinely bombing Hanoi in 72 and that B-52s carried the most sophisticated ECM suite of any strike aircraft at the time, it seemed like a resonable gamble. The simple fact is that after 7 years of war, the Vietnamese/Russians could read U.S. tactics and make a good guess at the target and ingress and egress routes. This was also made simpler by the fact that B-52s were big, slow, less maneuverable and therefore more predictable. Even after the change in tactics, B-52s still suffered losses. The fact that losses went down could just as easily be explained by various other factors: effect of previous strikes, going after easier targets, employing vastly increased numbers of supporting EW, CHAFF and SEAD aircraft and the simple fact that the Vietnamese were running out of SAMs.
Quote:
|
Even in 1972 SAC would not flown a strike on the USSR in the manner that the bombings where flown in 1972 you are taking into consideration an isolated incident of forced use of the B-52 in an exposed manner it is incorrect and you completely fail to take into account how the B-52 would have truly been flown against the Soviets.Since then the BUFF has been adapted to the differing role of what a bomber is.
|
Let me guess, go in low and fast? Good luck avoiding AAA and MIGs or do you really believe that a large, non-stealth, subsonic bomber could penetrate alone thousands of miles into the USSR?
The fact is that the B-52 was already obsolete in 1972 for its primary mission, any nuclear strike against the USSR would have been carried out by land/sub based ICBMs.