Looking for SAM doctrine and deployment documents

[33-DFTC]

Hi there !

 

As described in the title I'm looking for books and/or websites regarding SAM doctrine, specifically during the cold war. I spent the last few days looking through countless Amazon and Google results and found nothing valuable to me.

 

I'd like to learn how NATO/Warsaw Pact deployed their assets. What kind of SAM/AAA was picked to defend a certain type of target, how many of them were deployed regarding the objective's importance, but also how the air defense systems were organized (how many launchers for a system, what's distance between launchers and their tracking operators, etc. …).

 

My goal is to recreate more plausible environments in DCS thanks to the Mission Editor.

 

 

Thank you for your help))

 

 

PS : Any books/websites on interaction between GCI and WP Air Defense is welcome too.

[Bacab]

I use ro ask nearly the same thing here: https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Eeagle%2Eru%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D178444&share_tid=178444&share_fid=74365&share_type=t

 

 

I hope it will be useful

[33-DFTC]

Thank you for redirecting me to your thread, I wish I could find some books too (kind of a bookworm …).

[Ghostraider]

Look here:

 

its in German but maybe it could help

 

http://www.peters-ada.de/taktik1.htm#FEK

[Bacab]

I would like too but so far my search has been in vain.

[Ghostraider]

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_01_20172104.pdf

 

http://ed-thelen.org/USAADSDigest1965chapter2.pdf

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43482/JWP363Ed2.pdf

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/

[Bacab]

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_01_20172104.pdf

 

http://ed-thelen.org/USAADSDigest1965chapter2.pdf

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43482/JWP363Ed2.pdf

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/

Ausairpower is not always a trustworthy source.

[33-DFTC]

I'm back !

 

After A LOT of research and reading I found exactly what I wanted in a "unusual" place. The US Army FM100-2-3 "The Soviet Army - Troops, Organization and equipment".

 

From the page 305 to the page 326, the manual provides a description of nearly all systems currently used in DCS. Here's an example of the short - but efficient - description of a system :

 

---

 

DESCRIPTION

The SA-3/GOA is a two-stage, solide-fuel, low to medium altitude SAM. Two ready missiles travel in tandem on a modified truck or tracked vehicle from which the crew loads the missiles onto a ground-mounted, trainable launcher for firing. Both twin and quadriple launchers are in use. The truck-mounted FLAT FACE radar acquires the targets, while the LOW BLOW radar carries out the fire control function.

 

CAPABILITIES

The SA-3 has automatic radio-command guidance. The weapon can engage air targets at altitudes between 100 and 25.000 meters at slant ranges of 6 to 25 kilometers. It is principally a point/small-area defense weapon. Along with the S-60 and other AA guns, it may provide low-to-medium altitude air defense of front critical rear area assets as a complement to the high-altitude capabilities of the SA-2. As with SA-2 units, SA-3 units are not normally subordinates to the ground forces, although they may be integrated into the front air defense system.

 

LIMITATIONS

The SA-3 system is not mobile. It is movable, but its displacement time is considerable.

 

REMARKS

The Soviets introduced the SA-3 into service in 1961. Newer, more mobile systems with improved capabilities (for example, the SA-6 and SA-8) have replaced it in its original role as a low-altitude air defense weapon in support of maneuver elements. However, it has continued in its role as a rear area air defense weapon. The Soviets introduced a quadruple launcher in 1973 for this purpose.

 

---

 

The others descriptions may include as well the numbers of launchers per battery and more importantly the type of location where the system would likely be found (distance from the frontline, type of targets defended- tactical or strategic, etc. ...).

 

This is quite an interesting read for anyone willing to place some threats in their missions to recreate typical Warsaw Pact Air Defense deployment. I'm just wondering now if the Air Force has the same type of public litterature as the Army does with their Field Manuals. (Edit 2 : Forget this one, I just found their website, have to dig in it now).

 

Edit : I just bought a "Jane's Land-Based Air Defense" book. I hope it will contain useful informations for mission editors nerds.

Edited December 28, 2017 by 33-DFTC

[Ghostraider]

Ausairpower is not always a trustworthy source.

 

Tell me better sources :smilewink:

[Bacab]

I'm back !

 

After A LOT of research and reading I found exactly what I wanted in a "unusual" place. The US Army FM100-2-3 "The Soviet Army - Troops, Organization and equipment".

 

Very good find though I'm wondering why other systems are not mentioned.

Thank you for sharing this information.

[33-DFTC]

As a manual intended for the army, I think they only listed the equipment in use with the Soviet ground forces. Systems like S-300 are under the Strategic Air Defense PVO ; these systems would not be deployed near the FLOT.

[Bacab]

As a manual intended for the army, I think they only listed the equipment in use with the Soviet ground forces. Systems like S-300 are under the Strategic Air Defense PVO ; these systems would not be deployed near the FLOT.

The SA-2 is also a PVO asset so I'm not sure about that.

[33-DFTC]

Reading this Field Manual and another document released by the CIA (Warsaw Pact Air Defense against Air Attack - Doctrine and Objective), it seems that the proximity to the FLOT will influence who is responsible for the equipment : PVO Strany (Air Defense of the Homeland) or PVO Voysk (Soviet Ground Force air defense elements).

 

In the case of the SA-2, its employment as a defense point near the frontline will define who controls it. In this case, the Soviet Ground Forces. As such, the SA-2 appears in this Field Manual describing Soviet Ground Equipment.

 

All the systems described in this Field Manual are equipment under ground forces control. Larger Air Defense systems like S-300 will be found nowhere near the FLOT but hundreds of kilometers behind it. This is very doubtful that a simple grunt has a chance to encounter one and has to ID it.

 

This is what I understood from my readings, I could be wrong as english is not my native language but I'm fairly confident about this one.

[Bacab]

Reading this Field Manual and another document released by the CIA (Warsaw Pact Air Defense against Air Attack - Doctrine and Objective), it seems that the proximity to the FLOT will influence who is responsible for the equipment : PVO Strany (Air Defense of the Homeland) or PVO Voysk (Soviet Ground Force air defense elements).

 

In the case of the SA-2, its employment as a defense point near the frontline will define who controls it. In this case, the Soviet Ground Forces. As such, the SA-2 appears in this Field Manual describing Soviet Ground Equipment.

 

All the systems described in this Field Manual are equipment under ground forces control. Larger Air Defense systems like S-300 will be found nowhere near the FLOT but hundreds of kilometers behind it. This is very doubtful that a simple grunt has a chance to encounter one and has to ID it.

 

This is what I understood from my readings, I could be wrong as english is not my native language but I'm fairly confident about this one.

If you want to check, my source is the documentation from SAMSim.

Maybe the control of SA-2 systems was handed over to ground forces when it became obsolete as an area defense system ? I have my doubts though.

The thing is SA-2 is not intended as a movable asset and I have yet to read an instance where an SA-2 battery was moved to a frontline. Usually they were set up on fortified position to defend strategic areas and could not really move from those positions. So it make little sense to hand their control to ground forces.

[Pikey]

It depends on the year, thus the available SAM technology, then on the mobility. The point defense static SAM's like SA2,3 are to cover vital assets, the smaller air defense, mobilie ones moved with the battalions and were assigned to the infantry/mechanised divisions (which is probably the numbers you are wanting to look at?) For s300's you can download a google earth overlay to see how they were positioned on coasts and borders.

 

So back to the mobile ones and dates. I think there are some orbat's around that show the numbers, but it's kindda hard to put division sizes down in DCS without it melting. But if you get something loosely interlocking at the FLOT you won't be far wrong, then scale it up with point defences as it gets deeper.

[33-DFTC]

If you want to check, my source is the documentation from SAMSim.

Maybe the control of SA-2 systems was handed over to ground forces when it became obsolete as an area defense system ? I have my doubts though.

The thing is SA-2 is not intended as a movable asset and I have yet to read an instance where an SA-2 battery was moved to a frontline. Usually they were set up on fortified position to defend strategic areas and could not really move from those positions. So it make little sense to hand their control to ground forces.

 

An excerpt from the FM100-2-3 :

 

---

CAPABILITIES:

 

The SA-2, with a slant range of 35 to 50 kilometers, can defend high-altitude approaches up to 28,000 meters. The weapon is a national-level asset usually found in the rear area with the mission of defending static assets such as supply and command installations. SA-2 units are not subordinate to the ground forces but to the air defense forces at the strategic level. However, the Soviets may incorporate them into the front air defense system to provide high-altitude air defense of front critical rear area assets.

 

An SA-2 regiment consists of three battalions, each having a single firing battery. Each battery has six launchers arranged in a star formation, a centrally located FAN SONG fire control radar, and a loading vehicle. Although the launchers are transportable, they normally deploy in fixed sites. The two forward batteries usually locate 40 to 50 kilometers behind front lines; the third battery locates 80 kilometers behind. The system normally is integrated with other rear area air defense systems to permit redundant coverage. […]

 

---

 

Another excerpt this time from from the CIA document "Warsaw Pact Air Defense against Air Attack - Doctrine and Objective" (Part II - Section 7 § 29, line 9) :

 

Warsaw Pact field forces will be organised in Front during wartime. Air defense of the Front is the overall responsability of the Chief of the Air Defense Troops of the Front (PVO Voysk). He also will be directly responsible for ground forces air defense systems. The counterair fighters of tactical air armies (TAAs) will coordinate with and support the Chief of Air Defense Troops of the Front as needed while remaining under the control of the TAA commander. The NSWP tactical air defense forces have a structure similar to that of the Soviets and are likely to function in the Front structure as described above. […]

 

---

 

I'd like to highlight the underlined sections ; it seems to me after reading again the two documents that the WP Air Defense was somewhat flexible. There are a lot more references from the CIA document stating that responsabilities could be shifted depending on the situation and the location. I'd recommand you to read the entire document.

 

I don't know about SAMSim but I'll look into it. Nonetheless, I'll stick with actual official litterature.

 

By the way, I still don't know why we are arguing over this as this was not the original topic of this thread. French people really love to argue for any reason xD