|Having just read a communist defectors report from the Soviet Army (published 1982) I would like to draw attention to a matter of principle:
The Soviet considered Airdefence as defence of POINT TARGETS.
I my experience the NATO considered Air Defence an area defence:
The question was: The bad guys fly, WH»RE can we kill them? A totally different approach.
The defence of points leads to static SAM's supplemted with fighters.
If you have mobile systems, they have great difficulty keeping up with the armour and these SAM vihicles are very very expensive.
I've allway been very pro combined arms in the air as well. This lead to the attitude:
1.Free air defence asset from specific objects (guns at air station, can at best reduce hostile accuracy), as they will be taken out - one at the time - anyway.
2. Get cheaper SAM vihicles - that move (like all other artillery pieces) to a different position when they have shot.
3. Light up dummy radars at funny places, to let the enemy waste missiles, preferably at garbage dumbs, ministry offices and swedish embassies.
4. This is controversial: Train your SAM crews and AA gunner in recognition, so you can fly with impunity among your own missiles. Give the enemy 2 problems at the same time.
5 Issuing MANPADS to everyone is a mistake - keeps you own fighters from persuing hostiles over own formations - instead give them to small mobile groups with radio.