GarryB wrote:Another advantage of stationary sites is that defences can be more elaborate... they don't have to be able to move at short notice... equally as shown with the fixed launchers for Uran, you could disguise a few buildings to house further SAMs so when the enemy watches the area and counts up the SAMs and does their planning they will come unprepared.
You can really go to town in terms of decoys and camouflage and you can ensure plenty of extra missiles are available for use rather than ensuring everything is mobile enough to keep up with a mobile force.
I was thinking less about elaborate and more about leaving no gap for a sneaky "First Strike" even temporary, but your right if Russia were serious they could go all out, no just closing any gap in there defense, but also have hidden kill-zones prepped and ready, truly terrifying, i can only imagine Nato's dismay if Russia were to do this, to say nothing of a possible Rail Based Air Defense Train (S-3/4/500, Pantsir, Buk, Tor an all-in-one package), perhaps i am getting ahead of myself.
Remember the main reason Colonel Custer didn't take his units Gatling guns on his last battle was because he thought they would slow him down... had he taken them their firepower could have proved critical in his survival... or he might have been killed anyway...
I don't think i am getting the moral of this story, Colonel Custer dropped the heavy weaponry in order to increase his units mobility, which sorta makes sense at the time considering who Custer was fighting, he probably believed he was gonna do the chasing, unfortunately for him it went the other way, but what does this have to do with the S-300?
BTW nice find Morpheus... my vote...
Here here, upon looking at this i start to wonder if it's possible to place these in shallow waters, then i start thinking about the artificial islands China's making, and things start getting very interesting.