Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet Air Defense or "It really sucks to be an airdale over Russia!"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    When discussing ADA, the argument of which is better SAMs or Guns always pops up. Missile freaks always point out that it takes several thousand rounds to destroy each aircraft, but are missiles really better?

    Info is pulled from Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army...

    Flipping through peacetime journals and manuals one gets the impression that when a SAM is fired, there is at least a 80% chance of its target being destroyed. But combat is the true test of any weapon system and SAMs.....

    In the 1965 Indian-Pakistan War, India fired some 30 SA-2 SAMs and damaged a single Pakistan aircraft.

    In the 1967 Six-Day War, Egypt fired 22 SA-2 SAMs and missed with every one.

    Vietnam was the acid test of the SA-2 and the results are interesting:
    In 1965, 194 SA-2 were fired scoring 11 kills for a 5.7% accuracy rating.
    In 1966, 1,096 SA-2s were fired, scoring 31 kills, for a 2.8% accuracy.
    In 1967, 3,202 SA-2s were fired, scoring 56 kills, for a 1.75% accuracy.
    In 1968 (Jan-Mar), 322 SA-2s were fired, scoring 3 kills for a 0.9% accuracy.
    In 1972, 4,244 SA-2s (this may include some SA-3s) were fired, scoring 49 kills for a 1.15% accuracy.

    All told, an estimated 9,058 SA-2s were fired, destroying 150 aircraft and achieving a 1.7% accuracy rating.

    SA-3s are listed as having seen some service in Vietnam in 1972, I have not been able to find any sources listing number that were fired nor confirmation of the aircraft they shot down.

    The SA-6 is the next SAM to have seen combat service in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Egypt fired 840 SA-6s, scoring 20 kills for a 2.3% accuracy rating. Syria also fired a large number of SA-6s, but claim that every missile fired destroyed a Israeli aircraft.

    Syria is to be congratulated for destroying every aircraft in the Israeli Air Force (including all training aircraft) within the first three days.

    The SA-7 was used in both Vietnam and in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. In Vietnam an estimated 2,400 SA-7s were fired scoring 13 kills for a 0.5% accuracy rating. In the Middle East, 4,356 SA-7s were fired, scoring 2 kills for a 0.04% accuracy rating. The chief advantage of the SA-7 was not in its kills, but in the number of aircraft that were damaged; there is no information for the Vietnam War, but in the 1973 War, Israel reported 28 aircraft damaged.

    As you can see, the best SAM performance was in 1965 during the Vietnam War, the USAF/USN rapidly modified ECM pods to degrade missile performance and later developed Wild Weasel tactics to engage the missile sites themselves.

    So much for the 80% chance of destroying an enemy aircraft.
    The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

    Comment


    • #17
      Also, ADA and SAM are not an either-or proposition. Each supports the other as part of an integrated air defense that (ideally) includes interceptors.
      “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Webstral View Post
        Also, ADA and SAM are not an either-or proposition. Each supports the other as part of an integrated air defense that (ideally) includes interceptors.
        I've always called Soviet Air Defense Doctrine to be pretty much a lot like Zone Defense on a theatre scale:

        Layered defenses, in depth, with assets in place to cover all possible attack vectors - with the understanding that at the front line itself it is impossible to keep track of who is who, so shoot them *all* down.
        Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

        Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Webstral View Post
          Also, ADA and SAM are not an either-or proposition. Each supports the other as part of an integrated air defense that (ideally) includes interceptors.
          And only an integrated air defense system provides your troops with friendly skies.

          I find it interesting that, in spite of all the claims, SAMs really are not as good as a decent fighter.
          The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post
            So much for the 80% chance of destroying an enemy aircraft.
            It's obviously a typo. Should read 80% of all hits.
            If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

            Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

            Mors ante pudorem

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post
              So much for the 80% chance of destroying an enemy aircraft.
              It wouldn,c,"t surprise me in the least if there were manufacturers out there claiming an 80% success rate.
              “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post
                I find it interesting that, in spite of all the claims, SAMs really are not as good as a decent fighter.
                True. But, per unit, they are cheaper. That might be one of the reasons the Soviets made some many of them.
                Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
                https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

                Comment


                • #23
                  I remember reading in Zaloga's book on Soviet SAMs that the Yugoslavs were angry with the Russians in the '60s after the Soviets sold them the SA-2, claiming an 80% kill rate. They found out via North Vietnam what the real kill rate was and felt the Russians had cheated them.
                  Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

                  Old USMC Adage

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                    I've read at least a couple of credible sources that asserted that the Shilka and Tunguska were favored by the Russians and feared by the Chechen rebels because of their effectiveness in engaging tall structures with accurate and devastating fire.
                    The Russians have a few "Tank defense vehicles" nowadays (like 4 or 5 for evaluation) that are basically rebuilt T72 hulls with dual autocannon and so forth.

                    The BMPT

                    The West Germans also looked at the concept earlier in the mid 70s:

                    Begleitpanzer 57 AIFSV (Sorry! Link's in German)

                    (Hee...oh, lookee here! )
                    Last edited by raketenjagdpanzer; 11-02-2011, 10:42 PM.
                    THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post
                      When discussing ADA, the argument of which is better SAMs or Guns always pops up. Missile freaks always point out that it takes several thousand rounds to destroy each aircraft, but are missiles really better?

                      Info is pulled from Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army...

                      Flipping through peacetime journals and manuals one gets the impression that when a SAM is fired, there is at least a 80% chance of its target being destroyed. But combat is the true test of any weapon system and SAMs.....

                      In the 1965 Indian-Pakistan War, India fired some 30 SA-2 SAMs and damaged a single Pakistan aircraft.

                      In the 1967 Six-Day War, Egypt fired 22 SA-2 SAMs and missed with every one.

                      Vietnam was the acid test of the SA-2 and the results are interesting:
                      In 1965, 194 SA-2 were fired scoring 11 kills for a 5.7% accuracy rating.
                      In 1966, 1,096 SA-2s were fired, scoring 31 kills, for a 2.8% accuracy.
                      In 1967, 3,202 SA-2s were fired, scoring 56 kills, for a 1.75% accuracy.
                      In 1968 (Jan-Mar), 322 SA-2s were fired, scoring 3 kills for a 0.9% accuracy.
                      In 1972, 4,244 SA-2s (this may include some SA-3s) were fired, scoring 49 kills for a 1.15% accuracy.

                      All told, an estimated 9,058 SA-2s were fired, destroying 150 aircraft and achieving a 1.7% accuracy rating.

                      SA-3s are listed as having seen some service in Vietnam in 1972, I have not been able to find any sources listing number that were fired nor confirmation of the aircraft they shot down.

                      The SA-6 is the next SAM to have seen combat service in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Egypt fired 840 SA-6s, scoring 20 kills for a 2.3% accuracy rating. Syria also fired a large number of SA-6s, but claim that every missile fired destroyed a Israeli aircraft.

                      Syria is to be congratulated for destroying every aircraft in the Israeli Air Force (including all training aircraft) within the first three days.

                      The SA-7 was used in both Vietnam and in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. In Vietnam an estimated 2,400 SA-7s were fired scoring 13 kills for a 0.5% accuracy rating. In the Middle East, 4,356 SA-7s were fired, scoring 2 kills for a 0.04% accuracy rating. The chief advantage of the SA-7 was not in its kills, but in the number of aircraft that were damaged; there is no information for the Vietnam War, but in the 1973 War, Israel reported 28 aircraft damaged.

                      As you can see, the best SAM performance was in 1965 during the Vietnam War, the USAF/USN rapidly modified ECM pods to degrade missile performance and later developed Wild Weasel tactics to engage the missile sites themselves.

                      So much for the 80% chance of destroying an enemy aircraft.

                      Does anyone have information on the overall stats on the Iraqi air defense network during the first Gulf War? I know, I should research it myself but I'm feeling lazy. But just offhand, are there any stats or info out there what their overall accuracy and effectiveness was in regards to their SAM and ADA systems?
                      "The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
                      — David Drake

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Polish ZSU-23-4 and ZU-23-2 live fire off youtube

                        The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          So its a Quad.50...still cool

                          Here's one of a US Quad.50 firing

                          The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            ZSU-57-2 live fire video

                            The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              S-60 battery on the range video

                              The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Find the Gulf War Air Power Survey: it should have what you're looking for. It should be in any decent college library. A couple things are worth mentioning: Baghdad was more heavily defended than Murmansk was, and had twice the density of SAMs and AAA than the most heavily defended targets in Eastern Europe. And yet, total losses to all Iraqi air defense (SAMs/AAA) and MiGs (Scott Speicher) were 49; both fixed-wing and helos.
                                Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

                                Old USMC Adage

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X