Soviet frontal air defence solely based on SAM

Khanzeer

Banned
Soviet Air Defense Forces were a branch of their armed services, like army or navy. They certainly had air defence divisions and corps etc, although they didn't just include missiles. Fighters, radars, and AA guns/missiles all came under their command.
That was a separate branch , tasked with defence of strategic sites throughout USSR
I'm talking about a division of mostly SAM units which can be mobile like air borne divisions
 

Khanzeer

Banned
2 pages long already and no one mentioned how large USSR was and how many parts of its land is not suitable habitation.

The reason why the Soviets developed large interceptors is to ensure sufficient of its vast and hostile territory which would render reliance of SAMs too costly in both manpower and money. Also, no one want to live in wilderness, both officers and conscripts.
Not to mention the flexibility airborne systems offer and the ability to identify their targets more accurately
 
That was a separate branch , tasked with defence of strategic sites throughout USSR
I'm talking about a division of mostly SAM units which can be mobile like air borne divisions

Given that no country do this, it's quite likely not a good idea to begin with.
 
That was a separate branch , tasked with defence of strategic sites throughout USSR
I'm talking about a division of mostly SAM units which can be mobile like air borne divisions

Germans did exactly that in WW2, having rail-mobile flak units which could be used to reinforce certain areas based on strategic intelligence or other needs. Probably Soviets had that kind of units too. Il-76's and An-124 would ensure capability of moving whatever units necessary via air, if deemed necessary.

And, actually any GBAD commander in the world if he's truly professional would have some kind of reserve he or she can use wherever needed most. If you don't have reserve, you don't jhave influence upon events but are merely waiting whatever your opponent wants to do.
 
Germans did exactly that in WW2, having rail-mobile flak units which could be used to reinforce certain areas based on strategic intelligence or other needs. Probably Soviets had that kind of units too. Il-76's and An-124 would ensure capability of moving whatever units necessary via air, if deemed necessary.

And, actually any GBAD commander in the world if he's truly professional would have some kind of reserve he or she can use wherever needed most. If you don't have reserve, you don't jhave influence upon events but are merely waiting whatever your opponent wants to do.

Agreed. But I think Khanzeer is asking about a tactical formation, like a tank division or motor rifle division, which operates in the same sort of environments (i.e. up close to the front) but is equipped solely with AA weaponry. I'm not aware of any such formations ever existing. But, if anyone was going to come up with them, it would probably be the Soviets. ISTR they fielded artillery divisions as part of their Corps or Group-level structures, and they also came up with other kooky concepts like "machine-gun artillery" divisions, as well as those fortified area troops they had on the Chinese border. All it takes is them to decide that SAM units need to be held at a higher-level of command, and there you go - SAM and AAA divisions made up of all the SAM units of an army. In practice they would probably be allocated out to the frontline units and act very similarly to what we're used to, at division or even regiment level. But administratively, it's not crazy talk.

Tactically, however, if you want a SAM division operating independently, it is crazy talk. What would be the purpose of such a formation? It has no tanks or infantry, so it can't take or hold ground (it can't even defend itself). It's equipped with relatively short-range systems, so it can't defend a big area against air attack, and it isn't integrated with other formations so it has nothing except itself to defend in any case. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.
 
Tactically, however, if you want a SAM division operating independently, it is crazy talk. What would be the purpose of such a formation? It has no tanks or infantry, so it can't take or hold ground (it can't even defend itself). It's equipped with relatively short-range systems, so it can't defend a big area against air attack, and it isn't integrated with other formations so it has nothing except itself to defend in any case. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Small area? If the unit is composed of mix of, say SA-11/Kubs and SA-12/S-300V and closer range SAM's for self defence, it could take care of defense of a fairly large area.

Independently? No unit operates truly independently, and for some tasks infantry / marine / parachute / allied units could be tasked to self-defense duties

I would see several possible tasks for such formation for, say, Soviets in 1980's:

1.) Help for friendly governments globally without putting Soviet personnel on direct front line - granted SAM units may suffer casualties too but they would be deniable
2.) Reinforcing Army and Navy operations at critical stages - protecting key transportation during mobilization, support of key offensives, support of coastal defenses and amphibious operations - such as going to Denmark from East Germany, for example
3.) Complicating enemy air operations by mobile operations - deployment of unit close to front line or improbable location at some point to eliminate enemy support aircraft, for example, complicating enemy planning for air operations as the mobile SAM's would be an unexpected element
4.) Help for defense of critical homeland installations and bases at important phases of operations

Why independent? If a GBAD unit is tasked to support ground defense or to defend a key area it's key task is to defeat or hinder enemy air defense. Independent unit can be tasked to destroy enemy aircraft and could design it's operations differently, if decided. For example, when defending an area GBAD is based to effect enemy ingress route, when if one wants to cause casualties it might well be better to be based on to effect enemy egress route.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
It would more like a " fire brigade" force
@Jukra can you please elaborate on how SAM units can maximize interception at ingress and egress routes? How is that determination made by air defences commanders
 
It would more like a " fire brigade" force
@Jukra can you please elaborate on how SAM units can maximize interception at ingress and egress routes? How is that determination made by air defences commanders

By studying the enemy air operations and employing intelligence. Perhaps the most famous example from past 20 years is the F-117 downing in Kosovo war 1999 and 2003 Karbala attack. In smaller conflicts the most famous (and infamous) example is shooting down Rwandan and Burundian presidents in 1994.

If the GBAD unit is not tasked with defence of an object it can be deployed more freely to take advantage of intelligence in order to cause maximum casualties. It can be used also as an ambush unit, like in the two afore mentioned cases.

If the GBAD unit is tasked with defence of an object different tactics might be suitable, for example radar lock just to make the life of an attacking aircraft more exciting, firing AAA guns or SAM's just to distrupt aim etc.
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
By studying the enemy air operations

If the GBAD unit is not tasked with defence of an object it can be deployed more freely to take advantage of intelligence in order to cause maximum casualties. It can be used also as an ambush unit, like in the two afore mentioned cases.

If the GBAD unit is tasked with defence of an object different tactics might be suitable, for example radar lock just to make the life of an attacking aircraft more exciting, firing AAA guns or SAM's just to distrupt aim etc.
So in such situations mobile SAM units are preferred?
I'm assuming vast majority of the radars of SA2/3 systems were mobile too ?
Did the s200 SA 5 have any mobile versions?
 
Last edited:
Top