The Buccaneer was more structurally “beefy” than most other aircraft of its era, but comparisons can be made both ways. I read of an American P-39 pilot who transitioned to a Spitfire in WWII. While most certainly an advance in many ways (the Spitfire being the better fighter in almost every way), the difference in structure was night and day. He said he could actually grab the wingtip of the Spitfire and shake it up and down in the grass, something not easily done in the P-39. I’ve read the same of most other WWII British and American types that way. Mosquito vs. P-61, P-47 vs. Typhoon, B-17 vs Lancaster, etc.

One of the funniest things that I’ve read that way was the French experience with Spitfires and Mosquitos compared to P-63s and A-26s in Indochina. I read that the French complained that the British aircraft, while perfectly acceptable in European climates, were literally disintegrating in a matter of months in Indochina whereas the P-63s and A-26s were real troopers, lasting forever and taking whatever was thrown at them.

Again, the history buff in me.

Logan Hartke

But then experienced aircraft engineers who have been around a bit will tell you that many US designs are structurally flimsy compared to their European equivalents.

That’s an over-generalization, to say the least.

Logan Hartke

The Soviet Union at no moment was less capable, the Soviets had more nukes and they started after the West, had submariens like the Typhoon

At no moment? Really? Like in 1950? What was the nuclear balance then? And strategic bombers at that time?

How about 1962? What was the situation like then? There was no Typhoon then. What is your estimation of the situation then? I wonder if it was as bleak as Khrushchev’s. He was trying to bluff his way to a diplomatic victory and someone called his bluff.

What did the Soviets have to compare to CVNs? You addressed none of the aircraft types I mentioned. If I named every US combat aircraft type in operational squadron service in 1958, could you give me an equivalent Soviet type? How about 1976? 1986? Are you willing to take such a challenge?

Logan Hartke

You misunderstand I think…it has nothing to do with any topic, but with the fact that according to some people I should not be allowed to participate in discussions because I am a moderator. This doesn’t apply to all of us mods, just to me. So as I said, it’s not what I say, it’s the fact that I say it in the first place.

Yeah, I’ve been there. I used to be a full admin on a couple of very large military history forums and a moderator on another.

I can happily say that I’ve given up those positions and don’t have that obligation anymore. Having been on both sides, I prefer this one. It’s better for my hectic schedule anyway. On bigger forums like this, it can suck up too much of your time. I prefer primarily lurking and reading with the occasional post.

Logan Hartke

If the SEAD confrontation turns into a war of attrition, munitions costs could rapidly eclipse purchase costs, I’d say.

That all depends on the scenario. It depends on the skill of the attacker and the skill of the defender. You’re assuming two relatively equal opponents.

Also, you are implying that the defender was not going to buy or does not already field SHORAD gun/missile systems anyway.

Nonsense. I’m merely implying that he doesn’t have spare ones lying around. I certainly don’t think it’s worth stripping your armored divisions of Tunguskas just to do a job that two 9M96s can do. If you have two Pantsyrs lying around guarding a grain bin, then sure, add them to the S-300 battery, but don’t strip them from some other high value target just to add another ring of defense to something quite capable of defending itself under most conditions.

If you have the spare money to buy that additional ring, then fine, go for it. It has a number of advantages in engaging targets of that size over the S-300 battery. If, however, the two opposing forces are unequally matched, in either direction, those resources are most likely best used elsewhere.

The only time that I can see dedicated Tunguska/Pantsyr systems in defense of an S-300 battery is when an S-300 is likely to have a steady stream of targets, but not likely to be quickly overwhelmed by a coordinated enemy Wild Weasel attack.

Logan Hartke

Wasnt disagreeing about the Strv 121, but they are out of service. Swerve is correct they are in ready reserve though. Although I did see a pretty beat up Centurion (!) on the ferry back from Gotland a couple years back. Wonder if they are considering that “in reserve” as well!

Yes, but it was the Strv 121 that got the foot in the door. They could be had at a moment’s notice.

When I remember well, it was about the quality of MBTs. When we agree, that absolute numbers are no yardstick for best quality, we can agree about the number of won competitions related to that.

I agree that it should have been about quality and that it probably was, my contention was that “number of users” was being used as a way to demonstrate some clear qualitative advantage. My point was that there are a lot of circumstances in play here and for the sheer availability of the Leopard 2 post-Cold War to not be considered one of the biggest incentives behind the Leopard 2’s selection by most of those users would be naive at best.

I’m not arguing for or against either the Leopard 2 or the Abrams. Again, I feel that they are, at the moment, two very closely matched tanks. So closely matched that to discount the fact that one of the two types was available cheaply and practically instantly to most users would tip the selection every time. In fact, if you look at it, most of those users had no competition against the Abrams. I know Sweden did, and in that competition, they were very closely matched in every category. The most recent comprehensive competition between the two was in Australia, and the Abrams got that one. Again, though, it was very, very close, and in this case, the Abrams tanks were the used ones that walked away with the win. I’d also give politics a nod in this competition.

The differences are quite minor. So minor, in my opinion, that politics, availability, geography, industrial offsets, and pricing are going to have more to do with it than comparative features of the two tanks will.

Logan Hartke

Who did receive new-built Leo 2s?!

Only one post-Cold War country operating the Leopard 2 has more new-built Leopard 2s than used and that’s Spain. Even in that case, 1/3 of them are used, from German stocks, the other 2/3 were built in the country.

Most Leopards from most operators are ex-German or ex-Dutch, excess from the Cold War. Cheap and cheerful.

Logan Hartke