I doubt it, James.

The whole point of the Nuremburg Trials was that the Nazi leadership should be seen to be a group of utterly crushed and defeated criminals, so as to help reduce the chance of any post-war resurgence of militarism and/or nationalism within Germany.

Hitler’s trial and (inevitable) execution would have been a potent symbol of that utter defeat.

Exactly, Nuremberg was not about Justice as much as was about proving the absolute defeat of Germany and more importantly Nazism as an ideology. Nazism was so downgraded as to become criminal.

I doubt if there are any Bears flying that have ’50 years in service’.

Although it is a 50-year old design, most of the current Tu-95MS and Tu-142’s in RusAF service are relatively young airframes – having been built in the 1980’s.

As such, they are probably younger than the US B-52.

Ken

That is exactly it, it is almost certain that the only airframes still flying are the ones new built from 1981. This BS about Bears being 50 years old really needs to be put to bed.

If I read my Bill Gunston book correctly, the F-4K/M was another “Buy UK” compromise that didn’t work out too well. 😀
In the end it cost more to buy a plane not much better (if at all) than a standard F-4.
In many cases, the UK bought US aircraft only after cancelling their own programs or having a major mess-up like the Nimrod AEW.
And I’m not aware of Westland offering a UK-designed competitor to the Apache.

The RN’s F-4 was slightly more complicated than a simple industrial cooperation, it was a case of actually getting them off the carriers!:eek:

I think the experience of WW2 would have been enough for most people to make a special exception when it comes to the death penalty.

What proof do you have that source is reliable.

Now stop lying!! :rolleyes:

Well if you knew anything about the history of the text (and consequently about Russian weapons in general) you would not even be asking that. Furthermore the author has a blog so if you really want you can go and ask him.:rolleyes:

And all that is overlooking the fact that I have provided a source and you have provided none.:rolleyes:

Clearly, anyone can play that game, so if you have sources to discredit the ones provided, by all means lets see them.

NTI actually claims there are 134 Tu-22M3 in the 37th Army, which does not include another 45 in Naval Aviation.

How the 134 figure matches up with reserve figures of 90 is also something I’m trying to figure out, since there are “117” according to warfare.ru

24 Kh-15 anti-ship or anti-radar variants on a Tu-160 would be pretty effective as well in a hit and run attack from 200KM out.

no one is disputing the source, simply pointing out that it is a number on paper and whilst those figures may be the numbers officially in service it may not represent how many are actually service worthy.

“Dilutional”?

You can’t win an argument by making up your own words, mate! :p

Yes you can.;)