Military Review

Well forgotten old. Aerostats barrage against cruise missiles.

Well forgotten old. Aerostats barrage against cruise missiles.

As of today, cruise missiles (KR) were massively used only four times (material from 1999 of the year):

- by fascist Germany in 1944-1945 against the cities of Great Britain as weapons "retaliation" for the bombing of German English cities aviation;

- The United States in 1991 during the Desert Storm air offensive against Iraq’s facilities as a “punishment” for this aggression against Kuwait;

- The United States and Britain in 1998 during the Desert Fox air offensive as a "punishment" of Saddam Hussein;

- The United States and Great Britain in 1999 during the Allied Force air offensive to "punish" the objectionable NATO and US Slobodan Milosevic, and with it the entire people of Yugoslavia.

It is obvious that in all these cases the use of cruise missiles was dictated not so much by military necessity as by political motives. Cruise missiles, as offensive weapons, fully preserved the ideology of the use of "weapons of retaliation," embedded in them by the propagandists of the Third Reich. At the same time, according to many military experts, the combat capabilities of the Kyrgyz Republic are greatly exaggerated by the propaganda of the attacking side. Thus, the possession of the CD turns into a political trump card. In order to beat this trump card, any state should be armed with less or more effective means of countering cruise missiles.

Balloon barriers during the Second World War were one of the most effective means of countering V-1 (V-1) cruise missiles.

These CDs, like the V-2 (V-2) ballistic missiles, became an instrument of total war, the theory of which was developed by fascist military experts. The new "miracle weapon" immediately became a weapon of state terrorism, since the missiles were launched not by military targets and groups of troops, but by large cities: London, Paris, Manchester, Antwerp, Liege and Brussels. In the summer of 1944, the command of the SS troops planned to strike V-1 missiles at Leningrad, Moscow, Kuibyshev, Chelyabinsk, Magnitogorsk. In January, 1945, the German leadership threatened Sweden, that it would use V-1 against Stockholm if the country went to war against Germany.

When the British were faced with the problem of V-1 missiles, at first it seemed to everyone that there was no way to deal with them. However, rather effective measures were developed to combat cruise missiles. In general, the air defense system overcame only 33% V-1. As for the V-2, the problem of combating them was not resolved until the Anglo-American troops pushed the Germans back more than the range of the missiles.

Now the situation has changed dramatically: the defending party has learned quite effectively how to deal with ballistic missiles, and the task of destroying modern cruise missiles is not sufficiently solved. Consequently, the experience of dealing with V-1, including with the help of balloon balloons, is very relevant.

What was the cruise missile (projectile) V-1? The V-1 fuselage had a length of 7,6 m and a diameter of 0,82 m. The total mass of the projectile was 2750 kg. A high explosive warhead with an 1000 kg (according to other data - 700 kg) of an explosive was placed in the nose. Behind the warhead was a tank with 80 octane gasoline. Then there were two spherical steel cylinders of compressed air braided with wire for the operation of the rudders and other mechanisms. The tail part was occupied by a simplified autopilot. Wingspan reached 5,4 m. Flight altitude ranged from 200 to 2000 meters, speed - to 800 kilometers per hour.

If necessary, the V-1 warhead could contain chemical warfare agents. The warhead of the V-1 may have assumed nuclear equipment - in the last 2 years of war, German scientists were actively working on the atomic bomb.

Device cruise missile V-1

16 May 1944, the Wehrmacht Supreme Command issued an order for the combat use of V-1. In the evening of 12 on June 1944, German long-range cannons, located in the Calais region, began an unusually heavy shelling of British territory across the English Channel, diverting the attention of the British from the preparation of launching aircraft-shells. At 4 in the morning the shelling stopped. A few minutes later, a strange "plane" was noticed by the observation point in Kent, which made a sharp whistling sound and emitted a bright light from the tail section. The Plane did not dive on Kent, but continued flying over Downs. He fell to the ground with a deafening explosion in Swanskoum, near Gravesend, in 4 hours 18 minutes. Over the next hour, three more such "planes" fell in Cacfield, Bethnal Green and Platte. This was the beginning of the so-called "Robotolitsa" - the war of mechanisms.

V-1 cruise missile in flight

The main efforts of the British urgently transferred to the organization of the air defense of London, Bristol and the areas where the main forces of the allies were stationed to invade Normandy from missile aircraft. Back in December 1943, the British Air Defense Command began to develop a detailed defense plan against the V-1 - "Diver". Soon the circumstances required the preparation of another plan, which provided for the defense of the British cities and air cover for the Allies landing operations that had already begun.

The plan envisaged the creation of three air defense lines: on the first external frontier, V-1s were to be destroyed by fighter jets; on the second - anti-aircraft artillery; on the third - barrage balloons (AZ). To detect the V-1, it was planned to use an existing network of radar stations and ground-based observers.

London Missile Defense System

AZ envisaged to deploy immediately behind the line of anti-aircraft artillery in the number of 500 posts. The line of balloon posts was perpendicular to the V-1 flight routes.

Soon for the English command, it became apparent that the allocated amount of ground-based anti-V-1 weapons was not enough. London's air defense was reinforced with batteries removed from the defense of other cities. On June 28, 1 heavy and 363 light anti-aircraft guns participated in the reflection of the V-522 raid. Light anti-aircraft guns, anti-aircraft guns were deployed Tanks Royal Mechanized Corps and missile launchers. Urgent measures were taken to increase the number of AZ by 2 times.

Barrage of Mk-VII balloons on the outskirts of London

The Navy assisted the air defenses, sending ships to the French coast. They were 7 miles off the coast at intervals of 3 miles. Observers from the ships warned the fighter aircraft of the approaching V-1 with signal rockets and lighting projectiles. The flight time of the V-1 from the coast to the zone of anti-aircraft fire was 5 minutes, and from the zone of anti-aircraft fire to the AZ line - 1 a minute.

To improve the effectiveness of AZ, various adaptations to them were tried: nets, kites, and mustaches. But these devices hampered the work of the balloon post and had to be abandoned.

The most successful event aimed at increasing the effectiveness of air defense from airplanes, was the regrouping of anti-aircraft artillery from the vicinity of London directly to the coast. AZ remained in their places. As a result, the zone of action was divided into two parts: in front of an anti-aircraft artillery belt over the sea and between the same belt and aerostats of a barrier over land.

After regrouping the air defenses, one more CD was shot down in one week than in any previous week. August 28 was a turning point: from 97 KR, crossed the English Channel, 92 was destroyed, 4 reached London, and 3 fell, not reaching the city. Thus, in August, 1944, when the shelling of London V-1 reached its limit, the air defense achieved the greatest success: only individual KRs broke through to the capital. 29 March 1945. The last V-1 projectile landed on England.

German cruise missiles V-1 caused great damage to England: 24491 residential building was destroyed, 52293 buildings were uninhabitable. A 5864 person was killed, a 17197 was seriously injured and a 23174 person was slightly injured. On average, a single projectile that reached London and its environs, 10 killed and seriously wounded. In addition to London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Manchester and other cities of England were bombarded. Despite the fact that only half of the V-1 reached the goal, the strikes of the Kyrgyz Republic had a great moral and psychological effect on the population of England.

Aerostats barriers were, in essence, the last line of protection of London from the V-1. Despite the passive nature of their opposition, the 231 projectile crashed on their cables. Moreover, their greater number falls on the period when the intensity of the bombing was the greatest, and the air defense systems of anti-aircraft defense regrouped.

Mk-VII balloon cable withstood a cruise missile strike (debris nearby)

The wing of the V-1 projectile, as opened with a can opener with a balloon barrier cable ...

.. and pererublenny cable fuselage

Both in the USSR and in the UK, in parts of the barrage balloons mostly female volunteers served

American military experts believed that if the Germans managed to improve their V-1 on 6 months earlier and apply them in areas where amphibious forces and assets were concentrated, this would make it extremely difficult or even impossible for the Anglo-American forces to invade France.

The Soviet command in 1944 has learned that the SS forces are planning to strike V-1 missiles at some cities. At the same time, in order to increase the flight range, reduce losses from air defense weapons and increase the accuracy of the strike, Hitler's command proposed using the manned variant of the cruise missile Fi 103 and suicide pilots. The famous terrorist operations specialist Otto Skorzeny has already given the order to recruit and train 250 such pilots.

19 July 1944, the Military Council of Artillery approved and sent to the Air Defense Forces "Advance directives to combat aircraft-shells." 10 August 1944. The Military Council of the Leningrad Air Defense Army approved a plan for the deployment of aviation and anti-aircraft equipment in the event that the enemy used V-1. September 22 in part of the air defense were sent out "Instructions on the fight with the aircraft-shells" V-1 ".

In the zone of responsibility of the Leningrad Army Air Defense, two sectors were created: the north-west and the south-west. The air defense systems were located in zones: the first was anti-aircraft artillery, the second was barrage balloons and the third was fighter aircraft. Against the V-1, four regiments of fighter aviation were distinguished, over 100 anti-aircraft batteries, over 100 anti-aircraft artillery batteries (418 guns) and more than 2000 AZ. The total depth of the air defense zone was 70-100 km.

AZ deployed in a new, unusual pattern. Post nominated for the city and compacted. Their interval was 300-400 m, lift height - up to 2 km. Thus, the density of the barrier was 6-7 cables per kilometer of the front with a total depth of the aerostat zone 8 km. Balloons were raised in the suburbs of Leningrad and on barges in the Gulf of Finland. In contrast to the usual protective AZ line, used to protect London, Soviet balloons, in addition to the main tether, had two side braces, which increase the likelihood of a KR raid on the striking elements of the AZ. Tether mine was equipped with explosive action. Were significantly compacted battle formations air warning system. 86 observation and company posts and 5 radar announced V-1 approaching at a distance of 120 km from Leningrad. Nazi troops did not have time to apply the flying bombs against the Soviet Union.

Very interesting is the comparative analysis of the English and Soviet balloon systems to counter V-1. First, in both cases, barrage balloons were used in close cooperation with fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery. The only thing was that the air defense of London and Leningrad envisaged the creation of lines of three different forces: aviation, artillery and aerostats. Both in England and in the USSR, radar stations and ground observers were used to detect and report on the V-1 raid.

Leningrad anti-missile defense system

The difference - to protect London on the outer (first) line of the V-1 should have been destroyed by fighters; on the second - anti-aircraft artillery; on the third - barrage balloons. To protect Leningrad, anti-aircraft artillery was deployed at the third frontier, at the second - barrage balloons and at first - fighter aircraft. Each combat order had its advantages and disadvantages. In the English way the aerostats were assigned the role of a kind of final barrier to cruise missiles, which nevertheless broke through to the city. This was due to the fact that anti-aircraft artillery was forbidden to shoot down V-1 over the city (shot down by its explosion also caused damage). In the Soviet balloons capable of playing the role of a sieve. On the cruise missiles that passed through it, anti-aircraft artillery fire was to concentrate.

The main aerostat used in England against the V-1 was the MK-VII. Its design was developed shortly before the Second World War on the basis of an English artillery observation balloon. KO-1, KTN and BAZ-1 aerostats operated against the V-136 in Soviet airborne systems.

Soviet mode of application of anti-aircraft barrage balloons, projectiles

Balloon balloon on the protection of Leningrad (balloons KO-1)

Thus, the first experience of the fight against cruise missiles shows that barrage balloons were used as an independent line of defense. However, the result achieved by the British in the fight against V-1 was provided by the integrated use of all anti-aircraft tools. At the same time, the interaction of intelligence and means of destruction, as well as maneuver by air defense systems, played a crucial role.

Only in less than four months of the raids of the German KR on London, the barrage balloons, as noted above, reliably destroyed the 231 rocket. This is about 3% of all fired missiles (it must be borne in mind that a significant part of the missiles did not reach London at all) and more than 8% of the total number of missiles shot down.

Number of KR, damaged cables AZ was probably much greater. This can be assumed from the fact that 231 KR was reliably destroyed only by the London aerostatic barrier system. Balloon barriers were deployed to protect many cities, including those in which the Nazis attacked the Kyrgyz Republic right up to 29 in March 1945. Undoubtedly, there was also a certain percentage of KR damaged by AA cables and finished with antiaircraft artillery and fighter aircraft. In addition, since the V-1 was an areal-type weapon, it is impossible to analyze the number of CDs that deviated from the original route and did not hit the target after colliding with AZ cables.

"Weapon of retribution" newer - cruise missile BGM-109 "Tomahawk"

Interestingly, the modern CD differs from the V-1 only in the use of new materials, more advanced engines, greater flight range and higher pointing accuracy. Neither in terms of flight speed, nor in geometric dimensions, the German CUs practically do not differ from the same Tomahawk or the Russian CU X-55.

Comparative dimensions of X-55 (1984) and V-1 (1944) cruise missiles

Consequently, we can make a confident conclusion that aerostat barriers will be no less effective in the fight against modern cruise missiles.
31 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. sq
    sq 1 November 2013 09: 29 New
    simplicity is the key to reliability.
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 1 November 2013 10: 09 New
      And now, under a modern aerostat, suspend a shell unit of the Shell with a radar and a bunch of tomahawks bye-bye.
      1. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 1 November 2013 16: 50 New
        Quote: ben gun
        And now, under a modern aerostat, suspend a shell unit of the Shell with a radar and a bunch of tomahawks bye-bye.

        Even simpler: a man with a shotgun! (I'm not talking about a sniper)
        1. Rus2012
          1 November 2013 18: 27 New
          Quote: nick 1 and 2
          Even simpler: a man with a shotgun! (I'm not talking about a sniper)

          there is such a system laughing
          Правда, там автоматическая "дробовая мортира". Целое поле. Причем против подлетающих ББ МБР. Разрабатывалась для защиты шахтных сооружений Сатаны и Сотки. Как последний рубеж. Испытания прошли на Куре. Думаю, будут ставить...
          Source -

          "Защита шахтных пусковых установок МБР от высокоточного оружия"
          1. Nick
            Nick 1 November 2013 23: 39 New
            Quote: Rus2012
            Source -
            "Защита шахтных пусковых установок МБР от высокоточного оружия

            Thanks for the link. Very interesting article.
  2. Baron Wrangell
    Baron Wrangell 1 November 2013 09: 54 New
    cheap and cheerful!
  3. Vitaminchik05
    Vitaminchik05 1 November 2013 11: 46 New
    Against modern KR - it seems to me - the effectiveness of AZ is close to zero. London’s defense against the Kyrgyz Republic was relatively simple - missiles flew in a straight line along a small corridor (no more than a dozen kilometers wide) launched from one point.
    Under modern conditions, missile launches can and will be carried out from several directions located at a considerable distance from each other (moreover, the missiles do not go stupidly in a straight line, but along a previously developed route for each). Plus, modern CRs on a significant portion of the trajectory go close to the ground (no more than a few tens of meters - enveloping the terrain), and the effective altitude at the AZ is several hundred meters ....
    In my opinion, the most reliable protection option is anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance (such as shell, tunguska, etc.) that are independent of weather / time of day and with cheap air defense systems, concentrated in the most dangerous areas ....
    1. knn54
      knn54 1 November 2013 15: 49 New
      -Vitaminchik05: against modern KR - it seems to me - the effectiveness of AZ is close to zero.
      Вы не правы насчет "0 " .
      It should be established taking into account the tactics of applying the CR - CLOSE TO possible objects / goals. Moreover, it is necessary to raise by signals from special sensors or by commands from air defense centers.
      It is possible to knock off course, damaging, for example, plumage.
  4. makarov
    makarov 1 November 2013 12: 15 New
    "..применение крылатых ракет диктовалось не столько военной необходимостью, сколько политическими мотивами..."

    And economic feasibility, since the Kyrgyz Republic has a specified shelf life, after which they are subject to scheduled maintenance with the replacement of units as necessary. Therefore, for a monopoly military-industrial complex, it was naturally advantageous to receive orders for new CDs, instead of lined ones.
  5. MAG
    MAG 1 November 2013 12: 42 New
    Either I or the skis don’t ride)) if my memory serves me, then the tomahawks fly very low around the terrain and how high-altitude balloons, in addition to the ropes, can interfere. Or the adversary will report to us from which direction the hatchets will fly and then we will fill the sky with balls))
  6. MAG
    MAG 1 November 2013 12: 42 New
    if my memory serves me, then the tomahawks fly very low around the terrain and how high-altitude balloons, in addition to cables, can interfere. Or the adversary will report to us from which direction the hatchets will fly and then we will fill the sky with balls))
    1. Old skeptic
      Old skeptic 2 November 2013 22: 32 New
      Turn on the fontasia.

      A disconnected network, the principle of ceramic armor, is knocked out between two balloons, a separate 10x10m cell is knocked out, with aerodynamic or explosive elements at the corners of the cell (when a CR hits, the cell breaks down and leaves in place with a rocket, its task is to destroy the rocket by catching on it), the rest of the network remains ... And the low altitude of the Kyrgyz Republic becomes its weakness.
      1. Andriuha077
        Andriuha077 2 November 2013 22: 37 New
        The first rocket out of a hundred breaches and at the same time marks the edges, the rest pass into it. This, if at all, should be climbed there, ignoring more natural workarounds.
        1. Old skeptic
          Old skeptic 2 November 2013 23: 16 New
          1. The likelihood of several missiles getting into a 10x10 m hole is not so great, in addition, barriers can be multi-row.
          2. How does she mark the edges? What did you mean?

          And everything should look something like this:
          1. Andriuha077
            Andriuha077 2 November 2013 23: 30 New
            Вероятность поадания в специальную дырку никак не меньше, чем в пресловутую "форточку". Как это чем метит, реактивом для ультрафиолета.
            Yes, there were times, there were German flying bombs, we flew in formation.
            No matter how the networks turn out to be, with the required area, they are more expensive and less reliable than barring unmanned interceptors, with the entire ground support structure.
            1. Old skeptic
              Old skeptic 2 November 2013 23: 39 New
              In order to notice the network, special systems are needed (they are radio-transparent) + a UV reagent spraying system at a speed of 800 km / h + a reagent recognition system at the same speed. Attention Voros: How much will the ax weigh, and how much will it cost? wink

              Question # 2
              How much does the C-Shell weigh without a chassis? What kind of airship is needed for it? The possibility of evading this airship from long-range air-to-air missiles?
              1. Andriuha077
                Andriuha077 2 November 2013 23: 54 New
                To notice the network ... and the airships?
                system for spraying UV reagent at 800 speed - the reagent is not logged, it will slow down in a precisely defined circle. This first rocket will cost no more than the rest.
                За время внедрения сетей, которые затруднительно будет обогнуть по более выгодному маршруту, "Панцири" могут уже как класс устареть. Здесь уже следует рассматривать то или иное прикрытие той или иной конкретной конфигурации топорофобной цели.
                1. Old skeptic
                  Old skeptic 2 November 2013 23: 59 New
                  Quote: Andriuha077
                  To notice the network ... and the airships?

                  Balloons are radiolucent; moreover, they can be both optically transparent and relatively small.
                  But the radar, and even more so the air defense under the airship will glow, only on the road.
                  1. Andriuha077
                    Andriuha077 4 November 2013 12: 02 New
                    Down here is this "Satchel" against rockets "Military Review
                    Nearby, for own needs, a descendant of Self-propelled laser system 1K17 "Compression" »Military Review
                    and two new Shilki.
                    Big savings on a huge, easily passable network.
  7. Svetlana
    Svetlana 1 November 2013 15: 18 New
    aerostats should be used to increase the height of the radar attached to the aerostats. Then increase the detection range of cruise missiles (CR). The coordinates of the Kyrgyz Republic, found beyond the horizon, to transmit to ground-based anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM). Then you can shoot down missiles that are out of sight of the radar of ground-based air defense systems, but are in the affected zone of missiles
  8. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 1 November 2013 15: 45 New
    - The USA and Great Britain during the 2011 intervention against Libya. Several hundred Tomahawks were used. English and American ships and submarines also fired at Tomahawk missiles at air defense systems (114 pieces).
  9. Taoist
    Taoist 1 November 2013 16: 14 New
    Добавьте на аэростаты систему минно взрывного заграждения и реально может получиться "ассиметричный ответ". В этом случае отдельный аэростат спокойно перекроет полосу в пару сотен метров. - а так как высота тут большая не нужна то и аэростаты можно делать маленьким. Такой "минно воздушный барраж" вполне может обеспечить объектовое ПВО. Тут в соседней теме обсуждалась возможность использования против КР "противовертолётных мин" - с использованием аэростатов эффективность такого заграждения должна увеличиться на порядок.
  10. Ejik_026
    Ejik_026 1 November 2013 16: 22 New
    Nets of thin but strong cables at a low height.
    They will cut wings only on the road. True, if they fly in the same direction they can explode and make a hole for the remaining missiles, if they go one by one.
    On the other hand, the explosion will illuminate the direction of approach.
    It can work with a fool, at least the costs are not so great.
  11. Rus2012
    1 November 2013 18: 11 New
    Quote: MAG
    if my memory serves me, then the tomahawks fly very low around the terrain and how high-altitude balloons, in addition to cables, can interfere.

    Quote: Vitaminchik05

    Vitaminchik05 Today, 11: 46 ↓ New
    Against modern KR - it seems to me - the effectiveness of AZ is close to zero. London’s defense against the Kyrgyz Republic was relatively simple - missiles flew in a straight line along a small corridor (no more than a dozen kilometers wide) launched from one point.
    Under modern conditions, missile launches can and will be carried out from several directions located at a considerable distance from each other (moreover, the missiles do not go stupidly in a straight line, but along a previously developed route for each). Plus, modern CRs on a significant portion of the trajectory go close to the ground (no more than a few tens of meters - enveloping the terrain), and the effective altitude at the AZ is several hundred meters ....

    Dear colleagues ... we do not forget, both in the case of the Fau-1 and in the case of rusty axes - there are missile-dangerous directions, not 360 degrees, specialists know. Balloons can build a cable barrier in these areas, even a network of modern materials. For example, in Iraq such systems are said to have been used. Those. A network with 3X3meter cells is placed across a missile-dangerous ravine or canyon. Or layered. At least half a kilometer high, modern lightweight glass-carbon materials allow. What is the main advantage of the Kyrgyz Republic? It is in low altitude when very small viewing angle. Above 300 meters, the task of detecting them is already greatly simplified.

    And on balloons, even radar antenna systems and magnetic detectors of movement (distortions of ICPs) can be easily installed.
    Причем, АС-системы вполне мобильные. Перенеси, концентрируй на опасных направлениях. В то же время будет "глаза-уши" для авиации, ПЗРК и малокалиберной зенитной артиллерии (Шилка, Тунгуска, ЗУ-23)...

    Another thing struck me - the effectiveness of anti-aircraft artillery against the V-1. Those. in those conditions - they managed to shoot down the RK, which was practically not very different from axes in terms of flight characteristics ...

    Yes, and the aircraft of those times - almost visual capture and execution of submachine guns. There is something to think about.
    Here -

    my colleagues proposed a project. Including using the experience of older generations ...
  12. de bouillon
    de bouillon 1 November 2013 18: 31 New
    people)) you really ?! what are the balloons for? !!

    salvation from the Kyrgyz Republic is a multilayer air defense system, and the best answer is to the adversary, i.e. destruction of the carrier of these CDs.

    and in Baghdad and Belgrade they put against the Kyrgyz Republic a powerful obstructive fire from Zushek and everything else that shoots. Nothing helped.
  13. uzer 13
    uzer 13 2 November 2013 04: 24 New
    Balloons in our time can be made better and used as a barrage aircraft. Their advantages are that they can be on combat duty for very long, literally weeks, and even with minimal material costs. But there are other ideas. for example, to create an entire air defense system on the basis of balloons fixed at stationary points in sparsely populated areas, of which we have plenty. We can place automated radar systems and air-to-air missiles with a single control center on them. All of this has already been done separately. , you just need to collect all the components in one system - and you can close the whole north.
  14. Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 2 November 2013 07: 42 New
    The article is a plus! Very interesting!

    But I was thinking, maybe the Anglo-Saxons opened a second front ... because of shelling by missiles?

    To push back the German front.
  15. Moore
    Moore 2 November 2013 07: 50 New
    The difference is that in order to protect London at the outer (first) line of the V-1, they had to be destroyed by fighters; on the second - anti-aircraft artillery; on the third - barrage balloons. To defend Leningrad, anti-aircraft artillery was deployed on the third line, barrage balloons on the second and fighter aircraft on the first. Each battle formation had its own advantages and disadvantages. In the English method, balloons were assigned the role of a kind of last barrier to cruise missiles, which nevertheless erupted to the city. This was due to the fact that anti-aircraft artillery was forbidden to shoot V-1 over the city (shot down missiles also caused damage with their explosion). In the Soviet way, balloons played the role of a kind of sieve. Anti-aircraft artillery fire was supposed to focus on cruise missiles passing through it.

    Maybe everything was much simpler, or something more ordinary?
    At that time, the air defense of Soviet cities was not the enemy supposed in the form of V-1, but quite real bombers, attacking in certain battle formations, having specific tasks and opportunities for solving them.
    The second line in the form of a balloon barrier is just forcing the enemy to rise higher and, accordingly, lower the accuracy of the bombing. The third frontier of Soviet air defense is the focal protection of critical facilities. Everything is not from a good life - For the whole war was not enough.
  16. poquello
    poquello 2 November 2013 12: 54 New
    IMHO given that Lockheed was going to make a six-fly bomber and the development of UAVs - vehicles lighter than air, as a means of deploying countermeasures and tracking equipment, are quite promising.
  17. svp67
    svp67 4 November 2013 23: 58 New
    As early as the WWII years, airplanes — breakers of aerostatic barriers — were invented. Who is stopping equipping part of the Kyrgyz Republic with such a system?
    Вот Ту2 с системой "Параван"

    Вот "Юнкерс"
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 November 2013 00: 14 New
      And what is the mass of ordinary CD?
  18. Severok
    Severok 24 March 2014 19: 06 New
    Nice analysis! It is likely that AZs will be quite effective against the Tomahawks, quite!