Matrix Games Forums

Hello everyone and Merry Christmas.

Does anyone have knowledge of (or know where I could find) what the composition of a Soviet Surface Action Group might be found?

I've got in my mind a US CVBG vs. Soviet Union SAG type scenario in mind, and I have and can get access to what the US CVBG would consist of, I'm having a harder time finding the same thing for the Soviet Union.

I'm planning on having this scenario take place in 1988-1990...

Thank you so very much for your help.

It could have Kirov-class BCGN, Udaloys for ASW, Soveremennys for Anti-ship role..could even have ASW/ASuW cruiser like Kara/Kresta/Slava too., maybe also couple of lower-level ships like Kashins/Krivaks etc.

This may be of some help...

Newport Paper 33: U.S. Naval Strategy in the 1980s

Just go to Google, type this in, add the search term pdf to the search, and it should take you to various places, like fas.org, where you can download the book. It includes discussions of what and where the Soviets had in terms of naval forces during the 1980s. It does not provide specific ship types, but it will say things like, "1 CV/H, 1 D, 1 SS, 1 MLSF" as the typical Caribbean deployment.

Aside from the forward deployments, does anyone know if the Soviets favored a few SAGs with lots of ships (e.g., a dozen or so warships and half-a-dozen support vessels) or a lot of SAGs with only a few ships (e.g., each SAG with three or four warships, plus one or two support vessels)?

A related question...what was the purpose of a SAG for the Soviets? From what I can tell, their strategy was not so much power projection but a combination of protect the homeland/protect strategic submarines from attack/deny the enemy the use of the sea via bombers, subs, etc. I'm guessing the SAGs would have been to keep NATO away from their strategic subs (some of which were parked in the mid-Atlantic) and as anti-convoy/commerce raiding forces. Does this sound right?

Hello everyone and Merry Christmas Nutworld,

to back up what Sardaukar wrote, in Clash of Arms's "High Tide", you've got that Soviet SAG detailed:

"The First team" scenario (Sierra strike on a Soviet surface battle group, 14 June 1989):
- Frunze (Project 1144 Kirov class BCGN)
- Slava (Project 1164 Slava class cruiser) (optional, added as a variant for "expert strike coordinators out there")
- Boyevoy, Stoykiy (Project 956 Sovremennyy class DDG)
- Admiral Spiridonov, Admiral Tributs (Project 1155A Udaloy class DDG)

There also are Soviet ASW group, Kiev battle group, amphibious assault group if you would prefer.

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate the help. I will certainly be using this info as I start designing this scenario.

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

This may be of some help...

Newport Paper 33: U.S. Naval Strategy in the 1980s

Just go to Google, type this in, add the search term pdf to the search, and it should take you to various places, like fas.org, where you can download the book. It includes discussions of what and where the Soviets had in terms of naval forces during the 1980s. It does not provide specific ship types, but it will say things like, "1 CV/H, 1 D, 1 SS, 1 MLSF" as the typical Caribbean deployment.

Aside from the forward deployments, does anyone know if the Soviets favored a few SAGs with lots of ships (e.g., a dozen or so warships and half-a-dozen support vessels) or a lot of SAGs with only a few ships (e.g., each SAG with three or four warships, plus one or two support vessels)?

A related question...what was the purpose of a SAG for the Soviets? From what I can tell, their strategy was not so much power projection but a combination of protect the homeland/protect strategic submarines from attack/deny the enemy the use of the sea via bombers, subs, etc. I'm guessing the SAGs would have been to keep NATO away from their strategic subs (some of which were parked in the mid-Atlantic) and as anti-convoy/commerce raiding forces. Does this sound right?

Mark,
To answer your question as best as I am able.

When I was on the Eisenhower 1990-1994, our Airwing usually made recon flights over some Soviet Surface units. I was fortunate enough to have buddies who would occasionally share some photos/info about those flights.
For the most part the SAG's that we encountered were the smaller type that you described above. However there were times when the Fleets of course were on exercises where the larger SAG's were involved, but I can't state the exact composition.

And yes for the most part, while the USN doctrine was power projection, the Soviet doctrine was mostly (sub) Fleet defense, anti-convoy.

The Kiev class type ships and her escorts (to the best of my research ability and knowledge, as has been discussed) just wouldn't be able to function in a "power projection" type doctrine, due to the various limits imposed on the carrier/aircraft.

Does this help any?

In the mid-1980s, the Soviets also tended to use small SAGs. For one, the Soviets didn't have the logistics capability to support a large SAG for any period of time. Also, for the most part, their doctrine and strategy didn't really require larger SAGs.

Mark, To answer your question as best as I am able. When I was on the Eisenhower 1990-1994, our Airwing usually made recon flights over some Soviet Surface units. I was fortunate enough to have buddies who would occasionally share some photos/info about those flights. For the most part the SAG's that we encountered were the smaller type that you described above. However there were times when the Fleets of course were on exercises where the larger SAG's were involved, but I can't state the exact composition. And yes for the most part, while the USN doctrine was power projection, the Soviet doctrine was mostly (sub) Fleet defense, anti-convoy. The Kiev class type ships and her escorts (to the best of my research ability and knowledge, as has been discussed) just wouldn't be able to function in a "power projection" type doctrine, due to the various limits imposed on the carrier/aircraft. Does this help any?

Here's a reference regarding USSR SAG composition. From Soviet Naval Tactics by Milan Vego, pg. 234:
“Tactical Organization
The main provisional tactical-sized force of Soviet surface ships tasked with striking enemy formations of major surface combatants, amphibious task forces, convoys, and coastal targets is the ship strike group (KUG). Formed in the course of an operation or of systematic combat actions, these groups include several missile ships and gun-or torpedo-armed ships. Each ship strike group is organized into two or more strike group and on special-purpose group. A missile cruiser usually serves as the flagship……
Until recently the main provisional operational-tactical force has been the detachment of combat ships (OBK), usually composed of six to a dozen ships. However, it appears-although this is not certain-that the Soviets no longer envisage detachments of combat ships in their naval organization. Soviet cruisers and destroyers usually operate in groups of four, and small missile ships in groups of two to four.”

I know today a lot of the Russian deployments have warships outnumbered by support ships - ocean-going tugs, AOs, repair ships, etc. Not sure if the Soviets did it the same way.

I've got a scenario cooking now set in '79 with a largeish Soviet battle group, but it's set around the Korean peninsula - and even then, almost half the ships in the battlegroup are auxiliaries. If it was set anywhere beyond, say, 500-1000km from a Soviet port, I don't imagine they'd have many ships in the battle group.

The Leningrad and Moskva helicopter/ASW cruisers usually deployed with only a handful of escorts (and even then, it was generally around Syria or Libya). The Leningrad made at least one operational deployment as a minesweeping platform in the Red Sea with (IIRC) a destroyer, a frigate and a pair of ocean-going minesweepers.

ORIGINAL: CV60

Here's a reference regarding USSR SAG composition. From Soviet Naval Tactics by Milan Vego, pg. 234:
“Tactical Organization
The main provisional tactical-sized force of Soviet surface ships tasked with striking enemy formations of major surface combatants, amphibious task forces, convoys, and coastal targets is the ship strike group (KUG). Formed in the course of an operation or of systematic combat actions, these groups include several missile ships and gun-or torpedo-armed ships. Each ship strike group is organized into two or more strike group and on special-purpose group. A missile cruiser usually serves as the flagship……
Until recently the main provisional operational-tactical force has been the detachment of combat ships (OBK), usually composed of six to a dozen ships. However, it appears-although this is not certain-that the Soviets no longer envisage detachments of combat ships in their naval organization. Soviet cruisers and destroyers usually operate in groups of four, and small missile ships in groups of two to four.”

Good Find.....

I think that if Soviets would come out against convoys or even CVBG, they might have something like 1 Kirov, 2 Sovremenny, 2 Udaloy and maybe Krivak or supply ship. They'd want to have lots of ASM but also decent ASW capability.

I think they'd want to get targeting data from subs, satellites or reconnaissance planes rather than relying on own means.

I also believe that the Kirov would be accompanied by a Slava if it was a real push into hostile territory such as against a CVBG or Atlantic convoys. In a more permissive environment, the Slava would be the focus of it's own SAG.

B

Very probably this provisional, complex and of difficult navigation web site can provide a lot of historically correct answers.
I found it a few months ago and not employed it yet to much, but is a mine of Soviet and Russian force composition:
About Soviet Northern Fleet, including squadron and division ship or submarine composition !!!:

http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/SF.htm

I did post some of my little research of the web site and his organization here on Harpgamer:

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.ph ... much-more/

I seem to remember a Soviet rapid deployment exercise in the mid-late 80's that had War Pac ships pouring into the North Atlantic, Baltic and North Sea. They went from a peace time to a wartime like posture with almost zero notice. I had a friend associated with Nimrods at Kinloss and they had never seen so many surface/sub contacts before. It even made the BBC news.

No idea why they did it except to prove they could or maybe someone wanted to prove that the readiness reports weren't all made up.

Thanks for the answers/help with this. This community is full of resources...so I figured that I'd ask the question, rather than putting together some composition that would be inaccurate/foolish, etc.

Well it seems this topic for remembrances )) Ok

So, once upon a time there is a KUG
It consist from two project 956, one project 1155 and one project 1135 ships. Take a closer look?

Project 956 "Boevoi"("Militant")under command of Captain 2nd Rank Yuri Romanov
What can I say, good ship and good crew, they escorting soviet ships in Persian Gulf when Iran–Iraq war reached the point when the attacks began on neutral ships (legend told us they even shot down something like "Silkworm" but well,all depends on amount of Vodka on table, more Vodka and more and more "Silkworms" atacking our glorious ship [:)])Romanov excellent captain, really care for his crew and they tried not fail him His commander of the control of anti-aircraft missile division was Senior Lieutenant Sergei Samulyzhko good specialist but with problematic discipline.

Project 956 "Osmotritelny"("Cautious") under command of Captain 2nd Rank Vladimir Pepeliaev
This ship is usual p.956 , ship also participate in convoy in Persian gulf but create no legend about it before our story commander of the control of anti-aircraft missile division on this ship take promotion and now on this position "green" officer from academy (not necessarily a bad thing)

Project 1155 "Admiral Tributs" and project 1135 "Poryvistyy"("Impetuous")
This ships have own stories but in our tale they almoust "background characters"

On "Tributs" watching for our KUG Vice-Admiral Igor Khmelnov, but our KUG led by the commander of the 175th brigade of missile ships captain 1 Rank Evgeniy Litvinenko. Romanov and Litvinenko is big friends,both from TAKR "Novorossiysk" so obviously Litvinenko choose "Boevoi" as KUG flagship.

So it is 27 october 1989 and our KUG enter exercise area, this is annual event "Shooting for Binoculars from the Commander in Chief Fleet of the Soviet Union"

Against our KUG planned to launch: 2 P-6(aka SS-N-3a) from K-127 submarine project 675, 2 KSR-5NM from Tu-16K ,2 P-35 (aka SS-N-3a) from coastal complex "Redut" and 1 unmanned target-plane La-17MM. Sounds easy?
Planes Tu-16SPS-55 and Tu-16DOS (Tu-16P in database) from a distance 40 km use active and passive OECM

So it has begun

First column: "Boevoi" leads "Osmotritelny" folows
Second column: "Tributs" leads "Poryvistyy" folows
Green "clouds" is passive ECM

Commander of "Osmotritelny" made big mistake, not trusting in his the shooter officer (remember? "green" man from naval academy) he start shooting with main guns( two AK-130 ),vibration led to malfunctions in both "Uragans" (SA-N-7 Gadfly [3S-90 Uragan] in database) electric chains..So, "Boevoi" left alone against the missiles:
- first came P-35№1(PM-35№1 on picture)shoot down by "Osmotritelny" on distance 12km after that vibration "killed" his "Uragans" ,P-6№1(PM-6 on picture) shoot down by "Boevoi" 2 missiles both hit on distances 20,5km and 19km and P-35№2 shoot down by "Boevoi" with 2 missiles
- second wave: P-6№2(PM-6№2 on picture),KSR-5NM№1(КСР-5НМ№1 on picture) and KSR-5NM№2(КСР-5НМ№2 on picture) computer of "Boevoi" mark KSR-5NM№1 as more dangerous target and fire 3 missile in it hit with first on distance 19 km,meanwhile shooting AK-130 against P-6№2 is ineffective and "Boevoi" fire two missiles both hit at 9 and 7 km,after that "Boevoi" fire 3 missiles against KSR-5NM№2 hit on distance 12km
- 15 second after KSR-5NM№2 shoot down "Boevoi" fire 2 missiles at La-17MM (Ла-17ММ on picture) shot down with first on 12km

between first and second wave interval 12 second

"Osmotitelny"- fire 4 9М-38М1 and 48 130-mm shells UZS-44 hit 1 target
"Boevoi"- fire 14 9М-38М1 and 84 shells UZS-44 hit 6 targets

as Vice-Admiral Igor Khmelnov said "As in movie "Japan Navy in war"

so this KUG win "Shooting for Binoculars from the Commander in Chief Fleet of the Soviet Union" in 1989[:)]

p.s. sorry for bad english, I am not native speaker

Here is a RAND corp. study from 1987 on the Soviet deployments to the Med. You'll have to do some digging to get overall numbers.
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/.../P7388.pdf

This CNA paper contains ship type/numbers in Med for 1967 6 day war:
www.cna.org/sites/default/.../5500020400.pdf

I seem to recall a big Soviet exercise in the Summer of 1985. That might make for a good scenario....

I seem to remember a Soviet rapid deployment exercise in the mid-late 80's that had War Pac ships pouring into the North Atlantic, Baltic and North Sea. They went from a peace time to a wartime like posture with almost zero notice. I had a friend associated with Nimrods at Kinloss and they had never seen so many surface/sub contacts before. It even made the BBC news. No idea why they did it except to prove they could or maybe someone wanted to prove that the readiness reports weren't all made up.

Very interesting, Triode! Which ship were you on? [;)]

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Very interesting, Triode! Which ship were you on? [;)]

None of them,i'm too young
Just speak with right people and hear their stories
Funny add to this story:
Nothern Fleet is moar "rich" fleet then Pacific Fleet, and they also want this prize in 1989
So they also gathered KUG, for assured victory NF admirals add Kalinin into it. Moar ECM and 10 targets
So victory is assured.They fail.
One of goal for this event is "working off collective defense against air attack".Kalinin shoot down all 10 targets so this goal remained undone,"Nothing collective if one ship work instead of all KUG"
Funny isn't it?