Documents / FOIA release

Warsaw Pact Forces opposite NATO, NIE 11-14-79, Volume II, the Estimate, CIA/NFAC, 31 January 1979

Central Intelligence Agency · 201 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is Volume II of National Intelligence Estimate 11-14-79, Warsaw Pact Forces Opposite NATO, issued by the Director of Central Intelligence and dated January 1979. The National Foreign Intelligence Board concurred with it. It was the first comprehensive estimate of Pact forces facing NATO since 1971. It covers Pact doctrine, the ground, air, naval, nuclear and chemical forces, command and control, and campaign plans for war in Europe. It judges that Central Europe would be the decisive arena, and it lists Pact weaknesses in pilot training and antisubmarine warfare. The document contains no UFO material.

  • p. 25 …and subsidiary systems such as command and control, radioelectronic combat (REC), and reconnais- sance data link…
  • p. 31 …Some of these submarines might alternatively have missions of minelaying near NATO naval bases or patrolling…
  • p. 33 …The Soviet Union views control of its East Euro- preparerd for any mission, froni defending against…
  • p. 42 …The USSR attributes a littoral of Europe have significant capabilities in either broad range of missions…
  • p. 51 …Improved models of the radio-controlled The SA-9 and ZSU-23-4 are probably with…
  • p. 55 …All Pact countries have well-organized mobili- direct control of the VGK to tactical-level missions…
  • p. 58 …These have pervasive control over the soldier's activities and commanders are expected to be closely…
  • p. 59 …Frontal Aviation missions include counterair, ground attack, Warsaw Pact Fixed-Wing Tactical Aircraft reconnaissance, electronic warfare…
  • p. 62 …Pilot Training and Proficienc. 3Y US stand- facilities, hardening command and control facilities, and establishing pipeline…
  • p. 66 …control system which is designed to provide the coordination necessary to conduct close-in missions when…
  • p. 68 major ground formations is used by tactical controllers conventional weapons or to have an operational weap…
  • p. 71 …countries, are tailored primarily for control of guished by missions: antiship strike, reconnaissance those two seas…
  • p. 75 …missions of the Warsaw Pact's general purpose naval forces are to exercise sea control 110…
  • p. 84 …this mission. The combat radii of Soviet ASM-equipped naval Capabilities for Exercising Sea Control in…
  • p. 85 …signed missions; submarines would not neces-" The holders of the second view are the Director, Defense…
  • p. 87 …the Soviets, Poles, and East Germans other missions. Most bombers would be required for have the…
  • p. 118 …would be detached from national control. Re- - The Western TVD. This theater would include, sidual forces…
  • p. 122 …and control functions is central to Soviet control and integration of Pact military operations. Such groups…
  • p. 134 …against HEAT ammunition, the Soviets have incorpo- control and combat support communication links. rated composite or…
  • p. 135 …The Air Operation have been ascertained from classified missions assigned to the NSWP forces are intended…
  • p. 141 …Pact air forces to perform their primary missions in poor flying weather. ould be the preferred…
  • p. 143 …Others believe that no judgment with flying combat missions at low altitudes or over long any…
  • p. 158 …The establishment of control of the Norwegian drastically the likelihood of a major, preemptive at- and…
  • p. 163 …aircraft carrier probably would be unable secondary mission of antiship attack. The Kiev prob- to cope…
  • p. 175 …be building a mand and control and electronic warfare missions. force capable of siniultaneously lifting much…
  • p. 176 …The Pact's early warning network is scheduled current roles of sea control in limited areas…
  • p. 178 …We do not know how the Soviets assess the achieving sea control and in providing support…
  • p. 182 …subma- to control Pact forces once they are released from rines with peripheral missions declines, some…
  • p. 186 …Soviet sea control capabilities gravity to require an early Soviet counteraction. The against US carrier and…
doubtful ability of ground forces advancing across land-based NATO air defense forces in northern and
Finnmark to effect early linkup. The Troms area is central Norway, probably to clear a path for naval
more heavily defended, the terrain is more difficult strike, reconnaissance, and ASW aircraft flying against
than in Finnmark, and larger forces would be required NATO carrier forces and submarines in the Norwe-
to seize and hold it. Sealifted ground forces could gian Sea. If the Soviets chose to avoid Norwegian-
reinforce airborne and amphibious assault elements based air defenses, they would route transiting aircraft
ashore, but suitable port facilities would be required north of North Cape and then down the center of the
and the transport of these reinforcements from bases Norwegian Sea. Such routing would reduce the expo-
in the northern Leningrad Military District would take sure of the aircraft to land-based air defenses, but it
two to three days and would need naval escort. would decrease significantly the combat radius of the
152. Some 1 ,000 to 20,000 men in Soviet naval aircraft, the time they could spend in their operating
infantry, grouyd forces, and small airborne units areas, and the promptness of anticarrier strikes. It
would be likely to participate in operations against seems unlikely that many LRA bombers or even
northern Norway during the first week of conflict. tactical aircraft would be made available for strikes
This force could be reinforced, but the movement of against Norwegian air defenes, given the large re-
additional Soviet ground forces northward has not quirement for these aircraft in the Central Region.
been evident in Soviet exercise activity in the D. Naval Operations in the North Atlantic
northwest.
153. The Soviet motorized rifle regiments from the 157. In wartime the Soviets evidently expect NATO
two northern divisions are specially structured and to deploy aircraft carriers, ballistic missile submarines,
equipped for operations in the Arctic. Although these and large numbers of attack submarines against Soviet
units can easily traverse the terrain in northern Nor- surface and submarine forces operating in the North
way, lines of communication over land would be Atlantic. In addition,
difficult to maintain because only one major road runs they believe NATO would attempt amp ib-
through the area. There is some evidence indicating ious landings in northern Norway and use the Norwe-
that the.Soviets plan to alleviate this shortcoming by gian Sea as a launch zone for carrier-based strikes
resupplying ground forces by sea: against the USSR. They also expect NATO to establish
antisubmarine barriers in the Greenland-Iceland-
154. We do not believe that the Soviets would United Kingdom (G-I-UK) gap and off northern Nor-
attempt a large-scale airborne assault in northern ytonreyent-assae_ofS.oviet_submarines
Norway because the demands for air transport else-
where against NATO probably would preclude early
use of a formation as large as a complete airborne
division. The Soviets, however, might attempt to insert
small teams to sabotage transportation, communica- 158. The Norwegian Sea, especially its southern
tions, and intelligence facilities. half ending at the G-I-UK gap, is central to Soviet
naval strategy in the Atlantic. While the Soviets clearly
Air Operations expect naval engagements throughout the North At-
155. Air support for the Soviet ground forces in lantic, they reckon that by far the heaviest combat
Finnmark would come primarily from the some 120 would occur near and inside a maritime theater of
Frontal Aviation ground attack and reconnaissance military operations (MTVD) which they evidently
aircraft in the Leningrad Military District. Although would establish north of the G-I-UK gap. Soviet
none of these tactical aircraft are based in the north, operations in this MTVD would be intended to pre-
they have deployed during exercises to bases in the vent NATO naval incursions into an ocean area the
Murmansk area. There are no Frontal Aviation fighter Soviets consider critical to successful defense of their
regiments in the Leningrad Military District, although homeland, especially the Kola Peninsula.
fighters from three regiments of the Soviet strategic air 159. Soviet strategy calls for the early establishment
defense forces on the Kola Peninsula could provide air of control of the Norwegian and Barents Seas and their
cover to a dlistance of about 200 kilometers over approaches. Operations farther into the North AtlanticNorway. to prevent transit of NATO carriers and amphibious
156. We have some evidence that the Soviets would task groups and to divert NATO naval strength are
use LRA bombers in an attempt to destroy or suppress probably also planned. The Soviets would attempt to
IV-33

Not linked to a story yet.

About this file

FOIA release, from the cia-readingroom collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 201 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.