EntropyFor a long time European armies won regardless of technology. Consider Napoleons invasion of Egypt: according to his own account (confirmed by every other) the average Mameluke soldier was better-armed than the average French soldier. Napoleon reckoned they even had better individual skills. He claimed that any 3 Mamelukes were worth 5 Frenchmen. But he also reckoned that a French army of 10000 could defeat any number of Mameluke troops, due to its organisation & discipline. Not heroism (the Mamelukes were more heroic), not individual skill, not superior weapons: industrial warfare, if you like. Mass organisation, & superior tactics. Same with the British in India. Their guns weren’t significantly better than Indian guns in the 18th & early 19th centuries, when they conquered most of the subcontinent, but their tactics & organisation were.
You insist on missing the point. You seem to be deliberately avoiding any attempt to understand what you’re being told. It isn’t just individual skill. It’s systemic. How skilled are your ground crew? How good is your logistical organisation? How good are your procedures? And resulting from that, what proportion of your aircraft can you actually put in the air? Will their weapons work? These are all down to human factors.
Then, there is the matter of how good the opposition is. If the USAF had pilots unable to use its hardware effectively, whether through lack of skill or inappropriate training (it’s not just how much training, it’s what training), or the human pyramid which they’re at the top of didn’t work effectively, then yes, it could be defeated by an opponent with inferior weapons. But if the F-22 works, & if it is flown by a competent pilot, then it will almost always (one can never say absolutely always) beat MiG-21s. Note the ifs. You have been consistently ignoring them up to now.
Technology isn’t irrelevant (the straw man position you are arguing against), but nor is it, by itself, decisive. It needs the ability to use it effectively.
Are you unaware of the history of Israel from 1948 to 1973? Always outnumbered, always outgunned, never with a significant technological edge (& quite often technologically behind its opponents), but always victorious. Can you not see the significance of that?
BTW, could you please stop wasting bandwidth? Too many pictures which add nothing to the meaning of your posts, take time to load, & waste time scrolling past. If you want to post lots of photographs, open a “my favourite photos” thread or something.
Well written post swerve. Very nice. I don’t think MiG-23MLD is going to even attempt to view differing sides of the argument. It is truly hopeless to argue with him. He is just an war machine fan boy.
Concerning your first paragraph, I highly recommend reading “Culture and Carnage” by Victor Davis Hansen if you have not already. Touches on many topics you mentioned. Also his works on ancient Greek warfare are excellent.
MiG-23MLD. Persia had a superior army/navy both in numbers, types of soldiers and weapon sophistication. Why did they not crush the Greeks?
EntropyThe Penguin made by Kongsberg in Norway entered service in 1972, seven years before the Exocet. Still, the Rb04 was the first that I know as well.
Entropybecause at the end in a war you have basicly humans with the same capacity and IQ that are basicly only different by the weapons they use and the experience they have.
This is flawed and wrong at so many levels it is unbelievable. I don’t even know where to begin. You lack basic knowledge of the psychology of warfare. I give up. I can’t teach you the basics, you have to learn that yourself.
Go read some books that aren’t about technical data on the MiG-23’s or some other VG aircraft whose time has past. Go read “On Killing” then go read Clausewitz, and then again and then again. Read “War and Peace”, read Vasily Grossman, read Sun Tzu, read some Jomini, read something “Culture and Carnage” then starting reading about about Just War theory, read about logistics and support networks. Read about C4ISTAR, read simple things on OODA looping. This list is endless.
You have much to learn
EntropyI am not trying to say that Argentinian pilots were bad or inept. You should read “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. He talks explicitly about the differences in training of Argentinians and Brits, which led, in a large part to the success of the British.
EntropyBy the way the EF-111 is the better fighter flying low since it has a TFR that allows it to hugg the terrain and has VG wings to aid it, so to say the Mirage F1 was the better aircraft is unaccurate
I dont know. Mirage F1s did a good job killing Tomcats.
EntropyThat is another fantasy, equipment means money, money means your pilots can fly more, so they can know more their airplanes, they can exploit more their airplanes strong points.
Practice makes masters, money makes flying time, but basicly if you put two pilots with the same training and experience against each other on different equipment, the winner always will be the one win better aircraft
So let me get this right. You argued earlier that is equipment that made the difference.
Equipment is everything, .
Now you are saying that it is training. Which is exactly what I was trying to tell you. And the winner is not always the one with the better equipment. The first kill of Gulf War I was by an EF-111 without offensive weapons against a Mirage F1. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of a pilot in a more advanced aircraft getting shot down by a less advanced aircraft.
I will only say this once more. It is the pilot, his training, his support and his command structure that make the ultimate difference.
Besides, if the Argentinians had Tu-22M’s don’t you think the British would have thought of a way to neutralize them? There is a counterpoint to every point.
EntropyEquipment is everything, usually humans have the same IQ,
Wrong. This just shows you fail the grasp basic principles of warfare. You are being a hardware fan boy. War is is about human thinking, action, training, commitment and ultimately blood. The equipment is a distant second.
A piece of hardware is useless with out a good operator. Who in turn needs a good support and logistical network, which in turn needs good command structure which in turn…blah blah, its endless. In the end it is the people that make the difference in war, not the equipment.
EntropyWinning a war takes MUCH more then having the right equipment. You forget the most important piece of “equipment” in war is the soldier, his training, his motivation and his logic. War is not about the hardware, it is about far greater things. Your argument says that had Argentina had the right equipment they would have won. You could say that about just about any losing side in a war.
Entropyyeah yeah i will give you an example you are the one who only lives in a fantasy world
Is this a ferrari? is this a German car? a Japanese car? no is a mexican car designed and made by the mexican company Mastretta
Where did I mention the Mexican auto industry? We are talking about the aerospace industry.
You might not like it but Latin america will develop an aircraft industry, when i said mexico has not a military force to threat the US that is true, however it does not mean economically won`t influence washington and in the long run Mexico like Brazil will not develop their own industries and will create a globalized industry, the US won`t remain the only industrial power like it was in 1945 but only another regional power.
You also are ignorant that GE and Honeywel use mexican scientists to develop the latest technologies for the A-350 and Boeing 878, however in mexico our ITR is still too young to develop by it self a jet engine and it only is 30% mexican owned also there is not yet a mexican company that by it self can develop a jet engine it does not mean though that there are not companies in mexico designing jet engines with mexican scientists
Are you accusing me of being racist? Have I EVER said that Mexico does not have bright scientists? You best not assume too much, you will dig a hole.
How do you know that I am ignorant of that fact that GE and Honeywell use Mexican scientists? What make you decide I did not know that? Are you deducing this because I caught you going in circles with your argument? YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT I WORK WITH MEXICAN SCIENTISTS HERE IS SWEDEN!! Do not ever put words in my mouth.
Who cares about the ecomonical struggle between NA and SA if it won’t lead to air war, as that is what this thread is about! Not the future economies. Stay on topic.
Racism and ignorance have no place on this board. Please refrain from it or I will report you.
EntropyMexico in 2009 already has turbine design centers and is becoming a hub for aerospace technology, Brazil already is an aerospace power.
But in post #63 you said.
See in mexico we are so backward in aircraft technology that we can barely make light utility airplanes
see an aeromarmi stela made and designed in mexico
So which one is it? Are are living in fantasy world? Your arguments are going in circles.
I will give it to you though, you have a very vivid and wild imagination. Your views about the next 30 years are highly entertaining, though lack any evidence whatsoever.
Carry on.
EntropyNo that is not true, Egypt shot down many Israeli aircraft with SAMs but still lost the wars.
Ummm… Just because Egypt shot down Israeli aircraft, even in quite large numbers, does not mean they had air superiority. MiG’s were not free to roam the Sinai. Once the Egyptians moved beyond their SAM shield and the Israeli learned to cope with the SAMs it was game over. Egypt NEVER had air superiority.
In the case of Argentina, they miscalculated the British capabilities and the US-Argentina alliance.
The A-4s again like the ME-109 lacked range to hit the british fleet, the aircraft carrier 25 de mayo was even in worst conditions since it could not operated near an ocean area where british submarines ruled.
the result are fiascos that costed the political lives to Leopoldo Galtieri and Alberto Fujimori.
I’d fail to see how British submarines domination of the South Pacific and the lack of range of the A-4 have anything to do with Fujimoro, who came to power a full eight years later.
The venezuelan strategy is much smarter since the Russian Tu-160s can kill an aircraft carrier via a modern cruise missile and threat the US sending a signal to Washington very clear, we are with Russia, however it is unlikely the Russians will attack unless their aircraft are attacked but since they are forging military alliances is a good way of threating NATO about Poland and the ABM batteries deployed there
Ugh… you really believe that?
EntropyBut to have an air war you need a sophisticated machinery, specially since you need to have air superiority, current latin american needs are more for anti-drug operations and patrol aircraft.
NO! Wrong! Air superiority only means that you control the airspace! You do not even have to have airplanes to do that! It simply means that you control the airspace, via SAMs, aircraft, other means.
EntropyMan if you want to create scenarios you will see why it won`t happen.
[B]The most likely imperialistic power in Latin america is Brazil, being an economy of more than one and half trillion Dollars,
Man, and here all along we were talking about air wars, not imperialism. Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh wait, do you mean imperialism is the sole reason for aerial warfare?
Peru is too poor to invade another country, and an attack to Ecuador will stall plans for economic integration, like Brazil they need commerce not war.
Ecuador the same.
Venezuela well it won`t happen they do not want war, it will only give a excuse to the US to attack.
Well for the rest of the Continent well a inter state war is unlikely since economic integration is the main economic panacea to solve problems.
Oh ok, I get it. The only way that aerial warfare will occur is when one country invades another. You must have invasions for fighter aircraft to be swooping around, shooting at each other. Gee, and to think all along there might be more reasons then just that. How naive.
EntropyWhat air force did Rwanda have when it invaded Congo, & occupied many times its own area?
*cough* Viktor Bout *cough*
EntropyI dont think china ever invaded N korea. N Kor invited the chinese to come in just like the south invited the US to come in as far as i can recall.
Plus, China is the only place N Korea gets its food from. Mad as kim is, he isnt about to attack china. More likely, he will attack S Korea if he fears collapse.
Dude, I said N. Vietnam 1979.
Sign In
