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 ...
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