Talk:Red Storm Rising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject • (Novels, Novellas, Novelettes & Short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured Article): A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events - "10 achieved" Wikipedia wide peer reviews: no reviews currently Novels WikiProject Peer reviews : Master and Commander Improve: The Body in the Library • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon • More... Create: Dover Beach • Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title Adam Bede for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. The new article Fictional locations now exists - as a companion article to Fictional characters - but it is still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. Another new article A Taste for Death (P.D. James novel)‎ now exists - but it is also still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. A new Infobox exists to support the growing number of "Short Story" articles that are tagged as part of the project - take a look at it and comment on it's talk page. I would suggest we use it for "Short Stories and "Novelettes" and leave the main "Book infobox" for "Novels" and "Novellas". New hitlists added to the main worklist. List of literary works with eponymous heroes List of literary works with eponymous heroines Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

This article includes an incomplete infobox, which is part of the standard display of novel information developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. You can help by filling in the missing or incorrect information yourself, or copying the "source code" into the attached article if you need it, and filling in the information yourself, or by providing the following information here on the Talk page so that someone else can construct the box:
	~title of novel~ ~cover image of novel fair use~ ~image caption to give edition details~ ~author of novel~ ~country of publication~ ~language of original novel~ ~illustrator for novel~ ~cover artist name for novel~ ~novel genre~ ~publisher for novel~ ~dd month yyyy~ Print (~binding~) ~pagecount pp (~binding~ edition)~ ~ISBN ~999999999~ (~hardcover~ edition)~ ~prior book in series if relevant~ ~subsequent book in series if relevant~
Edit this message

Azerbaijani terrorists destroy a new oil-production facility in the Soviet Union, severely crippling Soviet oil production and threatening to wreck the Soviet economy.

Azerbaijani, or Kazakh? I don't actually recall the book saying, but I always assumed the latter. -Joseph 15:42, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

When I wrote this, I thought that I checked the book, which I don't have anymore. Can someone else verify this? Justin Johnson 17:28, 2004 (CST)

My point is, I'm pretty sure the book does not say, and I assumed they were Kazakh. -Joseph 02:58, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Azerbaijani. Ibrahim, the chief of the small terrorist team, is explicitly told to be born in Baku, and during the Politburo discussion Sergetov explains that his predecessor choose to employ adzerbaijani expert technicians in the new facility.

Contents 1 NATO 2 Tank breakthroughs 3 The Third World War 4 Close Combat 5 Red Storm Rising 1.0 5 military accurasy 6 Criticism?

[edit] NATO

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.

• Well, some people have hard a time accepting globalization as a fact of the new millenium, too. I haven't read Robinson's books, but coming out of the Cold War, if you were to listen to some of these authors you would think the world would be at each others' throats without two distinct sides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowrun (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tank breakthroughs

"...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)

Clancy's studied military history pretty thoroughly, I understand. I think his contention that massed breakthroughs were no longer achievable comes from 1) the fact that in the first half of WWII, only the Germans really understood blitzkrieg warfare, and 2) tanks today are far more mobile than they used to be, and far more deadly from a defensive position, especially in combination with infantry anti-tank weapons. JJ 02:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Don’t forget about the increase in battlefield intelligence either; sattalites and electronic warfare facilities can be used in real time to detect and counter-assault any forward thrust. This was one of the contributing factors to the heavy loss of Soviet naval aviation during the raid against the carriers bound for Iceland; when the pilot of Gull 2 used his radio lots of recievers detected and plotted the direction of the attack, ruining the Soviet battle plan. TomStar81 06:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Russian general has a scene where he describes how the advent of infantry (with jeeps) and anti-tank missiles have changed the ability to make breakthroughs. In addition, force densities along the Inner German Border were probably a little higher than in many parts of WWII. Kd5mdk 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is A) the time since WW2 until the 1980's saw incredible advancements in warfare, especially massed tanks battles, so that criticism is a little off kilter; and B) Intelligence and force projection were the main strategies used to counter a Soviet thrust into West Europe. Put it best, NATO (actually the United States, if you get down to it) would not throw more lead at the Soviets, but utilize far better technology and war materiel than the Russians could ever muster. When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union withdrew its armies and the real facts started coming out about its military, it became very apparent the Soviet Union was pretty pathetic; that NATO would more than likely overcome anything the Soviets used in a war, short of nuclear weapons. And the thing is, if you believe NATO wouldn't know where an attack would take place, then just realize it wouldn't take much more than simply absorbing a series of intelligence reports detailing where all the armor is at at that time and making the connection "where the biggest concentration of armor is at is probably where they will make the next move." Really, there wasn't too many places to move around on the Euro continent. Shadowrun 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Third World War

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)

In the foreword, Clancy explains that the novel was a narrative based off a game he and a friend cooked up. He mentions how hard it was to make a confrontation between the superpowers realistic yet nonnuclear. BioTube 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

i wrote a couple articles about some of the battles in the book, why did some one erase it?

[edit] Close Combat 5 Red Storm Rising 1.0

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/

[edit] military accurasy

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.

I most certainly believe its accuracy is compromised by the author's lack of knowledge on Soviet strategic, operational and tactical practices. His depiction of the 2nd Battle of the Atlantic is a joke (Soviet naval doctrine was, first and foremost, oriented around coastal defence), whilst his assertion that nuclear weapons would not be used is simply delusional. Most Soviet general plans on a land conflict on any scale in Europe specifically pointed to over 320 nuclear detonations over troop concentrations, military air bases, naval facilities and rail hubs on the first day. turska 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Indeed. That Iraq comparison is very silly. 1980's Red Army had T-64's and other non-export version of its tanks. T-64's/T-80's specially were more than match to any tank that Nato fielded at the time. Also the Red Army fielded a lot of AA weapons against low flying targets so i dont think the Nato helicopters or A-10's would have done much. Turska 08:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)turska

Well, SAM sites--their main anti-aircraft defense--can be targeted by anti-radar missiles, easily carried by helicopters and A-10's. And a battle between a T-80 and an M1A1 is debatable. The M1A1 is generally accepted as one of the best tanks out there at the time the book takes place, and firing from a defensive position, I see no reason that it couldn't match or exceed its depiction in the book.--TelevisedRevolution 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, nice comparison. Especially when it was revealed in the years immediately following the Cold War the Soviet military would have largely fallen apart at the hands of NATO, the comparisons to Saddam's Iraqi military in 2003 is very silly. Shadowrun 04:34, 20 March 2007 (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)

Relatively unimpressive? It annihilated an entire artillery emplacement, what more do you want from the thing? For a 50-year-old ship, it performs well. And trying to hit a ship with land-based artillery--artillery, not a shore-based anti-naval gun--is pretty difficult.--TelevisedRevolution 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

Could we get a section on the book's criticisms?

The problem with any Clancy novel is his lack of objectiveness. Clancy is the type of flag-waving romantic patriot that can never see the 'good guys' beaten in the large picture. Wether the magic frisbee, or the magic darkstar, or the two uber cia agents, some magic man or missile will ALWAYS find the fuel dump, ammo dump, keys to the aircraft carrier or the soviet launching the missile at the last second. Clancy does have some great research/background information, but i certainly hope no generals use his works of fiction as tactical manuals. turska 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Great research? I remember an old interview of Clancy in which he admits he actually knows very little about military technology and dcotrine, and thus invented a lot of stuff (like the Soviet's underwater navigational system in October). This interview was sometime after Red Storm was published. No doubt he has caught up on his reading since, but anyone with a the slightest knowledge of Soviet and NATO doctrine and equipment cannot take Red Storm Rising as a serious military book. I'd really like to see the source where it's said that RSR is basic reading in military academies, otherwise I'd recommend a "citation needed" marking to that claim at the very least.

Thats why i said "some great research/background". turska

So you would rather read a book where the heroes lose? It's fiction, not a tactical handbook. Most of his books are meant for readers, not generals. With the exception of Red Storm Rising, which was undertaken to examine a non-nuclear conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, his books are supposed to be thrillers that feature actual military technologies. If the bad guys won, it wouldn't be very fun to read.--TelevisedRevolution 00:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A point to remember is that Larry Bond did most of the technical elements in this book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC).