Why couldn't the Red Air Force have intercepted aircraft during the Berlin Airlift?

[Color-Copycat]

Why didn't the Soviets simply intercept and escort US aircraft back to the West German border? Was there some kind of joint-airspace policy in the skies over East Germany?

[The Red]

The Soviets wanted control of West Berlin, not WW3.

[The Oncoming Storm]

The WAllies had the use of three air corridors to West Berlin specified in the post war agreements. Had the Soviets attempted to intercept the Allied transports it would have meant war and Stalin knew where the redlines where.

[stateless_englishman]

Originally Posted by Color-Copycat

Why didn't the Soviets simply intercept and escort US aircraft back to the West German border? Was there some kind of joint-airspace policy in the skies over East Germany?

The Allies had access through theWest Berlin Air Corridor - as long as they didn't stray outside those, the Soviets couldn't touch them.

[Thoresby]

Originally Posted by stateless_englishman

The Allies had access through theWest Berlin Air Corridor - as long as they didn't stray outside those, the Soviets couldn't touch them.

Or they could touch them but it would trigger WW3.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by stateless_englishman

The Allies had access through theWest Berlin Air Corridor - as long as they didn't stray outside those, the Soviets couldn't touch them.

And before anyone asks; yes, Soviet fighter aircraft did enter the corridors and try to force US and RAF aircraft to fly out of the air corridors where they could be intercepted and forced down. There were also collisions between transport aircraft and Soviet fighters.

[Armored Diplomacy]

For the same reason that the Western Allies did not forcibly break the Soviet land blockade. They weren't stupid. They knew actively attacking these airlifts could mean war or significant military clashes. At the very least, the transport planes would from then on come with fighter escorts, and the Soviet Union would have it's reputation tarnished on the world stage as a bully denying food to a desperate city.

However, the Soviets did extensively harass Allied cargo planes. They would have their fighters buzz transport planes, obstruct parachute drops in the corridors, and shine searchlights to dazzle pilots at night. I seem to recall reading in a magazine that a Soviet Yak fighter pilot accidentally crashed his fighter into a cargo plane (I think an RAF plane) while doing a "watch me" maneuver.

[Pangur]

They also thought that were was no need to as they did not believe that Berlin could be supplied by air only.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Pangur

they did not believe that Berlin could be supplied by air only.

Neither did the west when it started.

[hugh lupus]

Yep WW3 At that stage how many nuclear weapons did the USSR have at that time ..zero
So Stalin was just pushing to see how far he could go without triggering a military response .The allies too did not want to escalate as well .
Stalin pushed ..the allies pushed back ..within the rules.
If Stalin succeeded then it placed the allies in a poor place diplomaticly ..not in a military sense as West Berlin had no military value ,or at least a very low one.
Once Stalin found there was not going to be a quick win he gave up and moved another piece on the cold war chess board

[Cook]

Originally Posted by hugh lupus

..not in a military sense as West Berlin had no military value ,or at least a very low one.

Berlin was the most politically important city in Europe, and war is politics by other means.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Cook

Berlin was the most politically important city in Europe, and war is politics by other means.

Which was a point the Soviets never got. West Berlin was a damn nuisance practically but politically no US president could afford to lose it on their watch, hence the endless frustration for the Soviet leaders.

[Star Chamber]

Answer to question: Because they didn't want deliveries of instant sunshine over every major Soviet city.

[Color-Copycat]

Didn't both NATO and the USSR regularly (almost) intrude on each other's airspace and intercept one another's aircraft during later decades of the Cold War? IIRC, USAF fighters regularly intercepted Soviet bombers that were loitering near Alaskan airspace, for instance.

[Armored Diplomacy]

Originally Posted by Color-Copycat

Didn't both NATO and the USSR regularly (almost) intrude on each other's airspace and intercept one another's aircraft during later decades of the Cold War? IIRC, USAF fighters regularly intercepted Soviet bombers that were loitering near Alaskan airspace, for instance.

There is a difference between buzzing and harassing aircraft, and shooting them down. Even if a potentially hostile aircraft enters your airspace and there's no war, you typically do not shoot it down. You warn it away, escort it with fighters, or force it to land, but you don't shoot it down unless as an absolute last resort.

Now, if the Soviets tried escorting them away, the Allied transport planes would have either kept going, daring the Soviets to try anything, or they would have left and came back with fighter escorts.

Aside from that, the Soviets technically had no right to be in Allied air corridors.

[Color-Copycat]

Doesn't "intercept" mean to fly alongside another aircraft with the purpose of escorting them out of your airspace?

[Pangur]

Originally Posted by Color-Copycat

Didn't both NATO and the USSR regularly (almost) intrude on each other's airspace and intercept one another's aircraft during later decades of the Cold War? IIRC, USAF fighters regularly intercepted Soviet bombers that were loitering near Alaskan airspace, for instance.

Very different matter. You have every right to intercept an unknown aircraft that come near your airspace. In ways it worked out well for both sides, NATO get to practice intercepts against the real thing as it were and the Soviets got more information on how NATO would go about it if they were playing for keeps. Both sides were also able to get good numbers on intercept times,

[Armored Diplomacy]

Originally Posted by Color-Copycat

Doesn't "intercept" mean to fly alongside another aircraft with the purpose of escorting them out of your airspace?

Yeah, but WI the Allied planes refused to be escorted away? After all, they were operating in their own air corridors that the Soviets had no right to be in.

And if the Soviets had fired warning shots, they may have turned away, but as stated previously, they would have been back with their own escorts.

[Pangur]

Originally Posted by Color-Copycat

Doesn't "intercept" mean to fly alongside another aircraft with the purpose of escorting them out of your airspace?

and have a good look at them for any intelligence

[Color-Copycat]

Ok, so in the Berlin Airlift scenario, more often than not you'd be seeing American and British fighters escorting Soviet intruders out of the air corridor as opposed to the other way around on account of having a more legitimate claim to (forgive the expression) "right of way"?