Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising novel

[Red Door]

I actually liked Red Rabbit, aside from continuity errors. That was a fairly decent story.

Teeth of the Tiger...that was was just weird.

His last real good book was Sum of All Fears. And Clear and Present danger is my favorite of his.

I think the Iceland parts of RSR are my favorite. Although the Stealth Fighter squadron parts were cool too. Oh, and Jerry 'The Hammer' O'malley.

I liked Patriot Games.

Executive Orders, Dept of Honor, and Bear and the Dragon weren't/won't be finished.

Iceland is definetly the best part though of Red Storm Rising.

 

[Nobody]

i liked Cardinal of the kremlin as well, its got more spying stuff which is what i like best. Im not that big a far of the submarine parts which take up alot of his books. I get bored of them.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

The parts I hate most about Clancy's books are how the US/allied forces manage something like 20 to 1 kill to loss ratios but then have to retreat anyways because they're ALWAYS stretched thin across the front, then in the last 50 pages (of a 650 page book) he comes up with huge forces out of nowhere to launch a massive counteroffensive that catches the "depleted" Soviet/NK/communist forces in too deep or some **** like that.

Really, I remember from Red Storm Rising that there were just a few American tanks defending against an entire Soviet armoured division, and every single shot the American tanks took killed a Soviet vehicle. They were just slaughtering them and when the Soviet tanks took a shot it would always just damage some of their equipment but they'd keep on blazing away like the stereotypical hollywood hero with a mac10 in each hand. Then, after they've driven off the attack, the Americans ***** and whine about how they're not getting enough ammo and being pressed too thin; "I don't think we can stand another one of those."

His plots are not only laughably formulaic, but so are the ways his battles go.

 

[sonorakitch]

The parts I hate most about Clancy's books are how the US/allied forces manage something like 20 to 1 kill to loss ratios but then have to retreat anyways because they're ALWAYS stretched thin across the front, then in the last 50 pages (of a 650 page book) he comes up with huge forces out of nowhere to launch a massive counteroffensive that catches the "depleted" Soviet/NK/communist forces in too deep or some **** like that.

Really, I remember from Red Storm Rising that there were just a few American tanks defending against an entire Soviet armoured division, and every single shot the American tanks took killed a Soviet vehicle. They were just slaughtering them and when the Soviet tanks took a shot it would always just damage some of their equipment but they'd keep on blazing away like the stereotypical hollywood hero with a mac10 in each hand. Then, after they've driven off the attack, the Americans ***** and whine about how they're not getting enough ammo and being pressed too thin; "I don't think we can stand another one of those."

His plots are not only laughably formulaic, but so are the ways his battles go.

I think you need to read the book again. It was quite clear and realistic to me. The final stages of the war consisted of NATO forces holding the key city of ____(don't remember) and then counterattacking through a whole in the Russian lines. The book illustrated that the political machine of the Soviet Army was hell bent on taking this one particular town on a river (which was a strategic necessity), and the haste in which their attack was implemented, a hole developed in the lines.

I thought it was genius actually. My only complaint was the stupid girl in Iceland. Why the hell do they have to ruin a good book some crap like that?

~Chris

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The parts I hate most about Clancy's books are how the US/allied forces manage something like 20 to 1 kill to loss ratios but then have to retreat anyways because they're ALWAYS stretched thin across the front, then in the last 50 pages (of a 650 page book) he comes up with huge forces out of nowhere to launch a massive counteroffensive that catches the "depleted" Soviet/NK/communist forces in too deep or some **** like that.

Really, I remember from Red Storm Rising that there were just a few American tanks defending against an entire Soviet armoured division, and every single shot the American tanks took killed a Soviet vehicle. They were just slaughtering them and when the Soviet tanks took a shot it would always just damage some of their equipment but they'd keep on blazing away like the stereotypical hollywood hero with a mac10 in each hand. Then, after they've driven off the attack, the Americans ***** and whine about how they're not getting enough ammo and being pressed too thin; "I don't think we can stand another one of those."

His plots are not only laughably formulaic, but so are the ways his battles go.

The "miricale forces" you refer to would be the fleet from America that sat sail, the one which O'Malley in that DD is guarding. The one hit, one kill is rather realistic, too, those were T-72s facing off against the M1A1 Abrams tank, a tank designed to pwn Ruskies in a European war, their shells WOULD tear a T-72 in half like they did in RSR.

The best part of the book IMO was how the Backfires tricked the Battle group with the faux strike force, and wound up nailing Nimitz with some Exocets. I didn't really care for Iceland, and the F-19 part was cool since I logged many hours in the F-19 game, and part of that game was making strikes against E Germany from the West, at like bridges and junk.

 

[Winner]

I think you need to read the book again. It was quite clear and realistic to me. The final stages of the war consisted of NATO forces holding the key city of ____(don't remember) and then counterattacking through a whole in the Russian lines. The book illustrated that the political machine of the Soviet Army was hell bent on taking this one particular town on a river (which was a strategic necessity), and the haste in which their attack was implemented, a hole developed in the lines.

I thought it was genius actually. My only complaint was the stupid girl in Iceland. Why the hell do they have to ruin a good book some crap like that?

~Chris

There were serious mistakes in the book concerning the Soviet strategy, tactics, military equipment and economy. The whole premise of invading the Middle East for oil is totally ridiculous, I'd say it is the weakest part of the story. Clancy obviously didn't have a basic notion of USSR's vast oil reserves.

Then, there is the classic 'clancistic' dependance on miraculous, hyper-modern Western military machines, that will bring doom to the enemy in one decisive blow. In RSR, NATO's stealth fighters destroy Soviet airforce during one night. Clancy obviously thought, that Soviets were so stupid they put all eggs into one basket. In fact, Soviet Mig-29's were designed to be able to take-off from unpaved airstrips. You can guess why - simply because they would disperse their airforce all over the country to make it impossible for NATO to destroy their airforce on the ground.

Also the depiction of Soviet invasion is... I don't know how to describe it, it is full of pathos. If you want something more "realistic", try Team Yankee.

Clancy should stay by writing novels about submarines.

 

[Speedo]

Really, I remember from Red Storm Rising that there were just a few American tanks defending against an entire Soviet armoured division, and every single shot the American tanks took killed a Soviet vehicle. They were just slaughtering them and when the Soviet tanks took a shot it would always just damage some of their equipment but they'd keep on blazing away like the stereotypical hollywood hero with a mac10 in each hand. Then, after they've driven off the attack, the Americans ***** and whine about how they're not getting enough ammo and being pressed too thin; "I don't think we can stand another one of those."

The book was written in the early 80s (82 or 83 IIRC), right after the Abrams was introduced. At the time it would literally wtfpwn practically anything in the world, especially the T-72s the Sovs were primarily using.

Then, there is the classic 'clancistic' dependance on miraculous, hyper-modern Western military machines, that will bring doom to the enemy in one decisive blow. In RSR, NATO's stealth fighters destroy Soviet airforce during one night. Clancy obviously thought, that Soviets were so stupid they put all eggs into one basket. In fact, Soviet Mig-29's were designed to be able to take-off from unpaved airstrips. You can guess why - simply because they would disperse their airforce all over the country to make it impossible for NATO to destroy their airforce on the ground.

Sounds to me like you haven't actually read the book. At best the skies in Europe were neutral - on several occasions the Soviets mount serious enough assaults that NATO AWACS have to go offline and run for their lives, not to mention the naval aircraft engagements and battles around Iceland, which is hardly a decisive NATO victory.

The miracle stealth fighter is actually quite a bit less capable than it's RL counterpart (except for having A-A capability), and by the end of the war the stealth squadron has taken extremely heavy losses and is riding on the breaking point.

 

[sonorakitch]

There were serious mistakes in the book concerning the Soviet strategy, tactics, military equipment and economy. The whole premise of invading the Middle East for oil is totally ridiculous, I'd say it is the weakest part of the story.

Yes...I definetly agree with you there; I do wish Clancy would have thought of a better spark to ignite the fire. But I always disregard the first chapter anyways.

Then, there is the classic 'clancistic' dependance on miraculous, hyper-modern Western military machines, that will bring doom to the enemy in one decisive blow. In RSR, NATO's stealth fighters destroy Soviet airforce during one night.

Actually, this is very accurate. There are many readings to come out of the former USSR written by top generals of the Red Army describing the utter fear of the stealth technology. The Soviets had nothing to counter this with; landing a jet in a field won't win you air superiority...it may save the aircraft, but any hypothetical WWIII situation would have required massive amounts of airpower from both sides coming together to create one giant fireball. And to further address your statement: Red Storm Rising didn't depict the NATO control of the skies until well into the last 1/3 of the book, after the fuel shortages started hurting the Red Army. All in all, a battle in the air would have been won by NATO in the 1980s hands down.

Also the depiction of Soviet invasion is... I don't know how to describe it, it is full of pathos.

I don't really understand this one...you mean it was full of emotion? I think Tom Clancy is a literary genius, but I definetly don't think any of his novels are full of emotion.

I thought the book defined a very good strategic entanglement in what would have always been an unwinnable war. His depiction of the Soviet invasion of Iceland was remarkable.

~Chris

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought the book while entertaining was junk. I think the Warsaw pact would have won in Europe in a conventional war. There was a reason NATO would have gone nuclear if the Soviets came west. Essentially any ground war would have been over before any signifigant forces from the USA could reach Europe as the Germans and american garrison would have been overwhelmed in the 1st few days from a Soviet strike. Most of the allied airbases were withen range of long range artillery/rockets and the Soviets had around 100 000 Spetsnaz whoose primary job was to eliminate airfields. It wasn't really until the late 80's the microchip revolution really started to pay off vs the Soviets as the technological gap between the two powers was very close up until the 80's.

 

[Winner]

I don't really understand this one...you mean it was full of emotion?

Well, yes, but also full of cliché.

I think Tom Clancy is a literary genius, but I definetly don't think any of his novels are full of emotion.

I thought the book defined a very good strategic entanglement in what would have always been an unwinnable war. His depiction of the Soviet invasion of Iceland was remarkable.
~Chris

Well, some parts were actually good, while other were too idealistic. Personally, I think that any such war would go nuclear in few hours, days at maximum. Warsaw pact clearly relied on nuclear weapons as a critical tool needed to break NATO's resistance.

 

[nonconformist]

I actually liked Red Rabbit, aside from continuity errors. That was a fairly decent story.

Teeth of the Tiger...that was was just weird.

His last real good book was Sum of All Fears. And Clear and Present danger is my favorite of his.

I think the Iceland parts of RSR are my favorite. Although the Stealth Fighter squadron parts were cool too. Oh, and Jerry 'The Hammer' O'malley.

Edit: I forgot about Without Remorse. Clark is my favorite character he's done.

Yeah, I'm in total agreeance with you, Turn.

I really liked all of the Icelandic scenes (and the marines and the poor old English guy got killed )
And Jerry was a badass chooper pilot (though I forget who the sub captain he was friends with was called.....the one who ends up crying over whiskey).

I also realy liked at the end when the General leads the paratrooper attack on the Kremlin.

 

[Turner]

Danny McCafferty, IIRC. USS Chicago. USS Providence and I forget the name of the 3rd sub.

 

[nonconformist]

Danny McCafferty, IIRC. USS Chicago. USS Providence and I forget the name of the 3rd sub.

The sub which went down, you mean?

 

[Turner]

Well, Providence didn't make it, and the other sub that I can't remember the name of didn't either. Chicago did.

 

[IglooDame]

Well, Providence didn't make it, and the other sub that I can't remember the name of didn't either. Chicago did.

The other sub was USS Boston.

Why does my brain store stuff like that, but I can't remember the name of the person I met yesterday?

 

[Turner]

Boston, that's right.

Providence was the one that took the missile hit, right? I should know this, I've only read the book a dozen times.

 

[nonconformist]

Did anyone else find Clancy also sacrificed quality for anti-Soviet rhetoric?

Now, if the book is based at some point in the 80's, then it's gonna be Andropov, Chernenko, or even Gorbachev in charge, which means that the USSR is in full detente mode.

So why on earth are there major purges of the officers who fail?

 

[Zardnaar]

Clancy is anti Communist but he has always had interesting Russian characters and has been very sympathetic in his later portrayal of Russians. Anti Soviet well yeah but these books came out when the USA was massivly rearming ( recommissioned battleships, stealth fighters, M1 Abrams etc).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Clancy is anti Communist but he has always had interesting Russian characters and has been very sympathetic in his later portrayal of Russians.

I enjoyed his characters in Cardinal of the Kremlin, which, after RSR, is my favorite Tom Clancy novel.