Talk:Red Storm Rising

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.
: Page 1: "their speech, which was Russian, though inflected with the singsong Azerbaijani accent".  Page 16: "Tolkaze had such skill.  He was an Azerbaijani chosen for special treatment".  No mention of Kazakhstan that I see.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.4.101 (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Azerbaijani, or Kazakh?

message: 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)
thread_title:  NATO 

message: "...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tank breakthroughs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  i wrote a couple articles about some of the battles in the book, why did some one erase it?
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)
thread_title:  The Third World War 

message: 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)
replies: text: In the Tom Clancy Companion book, Clancy believes that nuclear weapons won't be used. He pointed out that during World War 2, both sides refrained from using poison gas.  SCSI Commando
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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The US tanks in the book were identified as the M1 with the 105mm cannon (not the upgraded M1A1 with the 120mm cannon).  That probably balances out that fight a bit. --Occasional Reader 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: The "Soviet heavy gun position" was a collection of 152mm (~5.9 inch) field guns.  Pretty light weight to go up against a battleship with armor designed to resist ~406 (16 inch) rounds.  The initial round accuracy of the USS Iowa might be overstated in the book, but 152mm cannon would have a hard time significantly damaging a battleship; mines or torpedoes would be a much more serious threat.--Occasional Reader 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  military accurasy 

message: I suggest splitting the coumputer games section into a separate article, Red Storm Rising (computer game). SharkD 03:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest split

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tc2rsr.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Year? 

message: 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)
thread_title: additional sections needed

message: 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)
thread_title: Keflavik AB "accurate?"

message: 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)
thread_title: Rank of P.L. Alekseyev

message: 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)
thread_title: Harpoon game developer attribution

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major Themes 

message: 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)
replies: text: I did a search of the e-book edition of Red Storm Rising, and neither "Jackson" nor "Robbie" appear in the book. Bear in mind that Red Storm Rising is not set in the Jack Ryan universe. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cdr Robbie Jackson  

message: 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)
replies: text: I renamed it to "Legacy", which in my experience is a fairly standard header name. Also removed an unsourced statement that was at the end of the section. DonIago (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff - thank you ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan's recommendation to Thatcher 

message: "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)
replies: text: I don't recall that being an element of the book, but it's been some time since I've read it. I find it dubious that it's a "unique" feature that the novel describes a conventional war though; are there really no other novels that have done this? DonIago (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non- Nuclear War