14.07.2014 Views

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS<br />

ground in the face <strong>of</strong> intense ground fire. They again realized<br />

that attacking enemy antiaircraft positions (<strong>SAM</strong> and AAA)<br />

was dangerous and <strong>of</strong> dubious value. Most <strong>of</strong> all, they again saw<br />

that the tactics used in World War II and Korea were relevant<br />

for modern air warfare.<br />

<strong>SAM</strong>s greatly enhanced the power <strong>of</strong> the defense and presented<br />

new difficulties <strong>to</strong> the <strong>Air</strong>men. The SA-2s were the first<br />

challenge. They did not destroy that many aircraft and became<br />

less effective as the war continued, but they did force the <strong>Air</strong>men<br />

<strong>to</strong> lower their altitudes and put their aircraft in<strong>to</strong> the teeth<br />

<strong>of</strong> the guns. Another disturbing weapon introduced was the<br />

man-portable <strong>SAM</strong>. Although not possessing great lethality, it<br />

was easily concealed, highly mobile, and gave one man the<br />

power <strong>to</strong> down a multimillion-dollar aircraft. It proved especially<br />

effective against low-flying, slower (prop-powered) aircraft<br />

and helicopters. Second, <strong>to</strong> counter the missiles, the <strong>Air</strong>men<br />

had <strong>to</strong> expand the <strong>to</strong>tal number <strong>of</strong> support sorties, a requirement<br />

that increased as the war progressed. The effectiveness<br />

<strong>of</strong> the defense is much more than the <strong>to</strong>tal aircraft destroyed<br />

by the air defense system but must include the cost for the attacker<br />

<strong>to</strong> get bombs on target. <strong>SAM</strong>s made aerial attack more<br />

complicated, dangerous, and expensive. Clearly, the cost <strong>of</strong><br />

conducting the air <strong>of</strong>fensive rose as the Vietnam War continued.<br />

Countermeasures helped <strong>to</strong> keep American aircraft losses <strong>to</strong><br />

a manageable rate. One <strong>Air</strong> Force <strong>of</strong>ficer estimated that ECM<br />

reduced losses by 25 percent, while a Navy <strong>of</strong>ficer put the figure<br />

at 80 percent (fig. 66). 68 Nevertheless, air operations were<br />

expensive in both losses and effort. Communist gunners proved<br />

a worthy and resourceful foe, although limited by second-rate<br />

Soviet equipment. Yet, despite the able Communist air defense<br />

tactics and their adaptation <strong>to</strong> the changing tactical situation,<br />

the American <strong>Air</strong>men gradually increased their edge. The big<br />

improvement for the <strong>of</strong>fensive side came with the use <strong>of</strong> ECM<br />

along with antiradiation, “smart,” and stand<strong>of</strong>f weapons. These<br />

weapons increased accuracy and decreased losses. In the fullscale<br />

operations <strong>of</strong> Linebacker II, the American <strong>Air</strong>men showed<br />

that massive application <strong>of</strong> modern aircraft with modern<br />

equipment could succeed against defenses limited in numbers<br />

and quality. 69<br />

138

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!