Nice post, but the above caption is wrong. As later mentioned the 9M113 is Konkurs. The launcher is unified for the two missiles which equate to Milan and HOT respectively.

The list doesn’t seem to include Tank gun launched missiles nor other ground launched systems like Krisanthema or AT-6/-9 SHTURM/ATAKA.

BTW the comments about the panzerfaust being the first in the RPG series is a little flippant. The panzerfausts were more like recoiless rifles in that they were blasted out of their tubes but they didn’t have sustainer rocket motors and so lacked the range of the Russian systems we know as the RPG series that have two methods of propulsion.

Dear Garry,

The first Russian RPG weapon was based on the Panzerfaust 150 (the 150 means its effective range) which went into production in the very last days of the war and it is not known if it saw combat. The first widely used RPG was the RPG-2 which did not have a rocket motor which kicked in after it had cleared the tube a safe distance. While the RPG-2 did not have the effetive range or armor penetration of the famous RPG-7 the Chinese version of the RPG-2 the B-40 had a shallower cone in its HEAT warhead and had a much better blast effect against fortifications and lightly armored vehicles like armored trucks in convoys. Some NVA units kept their RPG-2 even when the RPG-7 became available for assaults on artillery fire based in South Vietnam.

Jack E. Hammond

st

american advice on civilian casualties and HR is strictly reserved for others like russia. the true extent of civilian casualties & suffering in Fallujah before the US govt called that off can only be known in fragments…..but nyet you “cant” do it in grozny. :p

imagine if a pliant drunkard like yeltsin had been in charge, russia would be 5 extra countries by now.

Dear Member,

Actually the civilian causaulties in Fallujah were light. Almost the whole civilian population (and some of the insurgents) had left the city under the window given by the US Army/Marines. Not to say the US was pandering to Moslem nations and condemning Russia about Grozny for what the US would have done if it was their turn. The bad guys use the built up urban areas and try to keep the civilian from leaving for one reason only. And it is not a tactical military reason (although there are tactical military reasons to use ubran areas, but you get the civilian population clear unless you fear the enemy will abuse them) but for what is called THE CNN EFFECT.

Jack E. Hammond

Young… as far as im concerned your last 3 points pretty much amount to ethnic cleansing in a foreign country. You simply cannot march into a neighbouring country, expell the population, destroy their homes and replace it with a minefield. Any attempt at winning a hearts and mind campaign has been totally thrown out the window and to top it off you have basically handed the entire lebanese populace over to Hezbollah in a way that they could never have done on their own. Apart from that you would destroy any little peice of international support Israel has remaining and you would also do a damned good job of putting the support of the entire Arab world behind the Lebanese. The Syrians and Iranians dream that Israel would do something so politically stupid. This isnt a computer game.. you dont just kill all the enemies on a screen and the level is over. There are 4 million or so Lebanese and what you just mentioned would be the best way to turn the vast vast majority of them the enemy. I know if someone ordered me out of my home and turned my neighborhood into a flattened minefield i would make sure that i would return the favor or die trying.

Dear Member,

Wrong! The Geneva Convention even allows it. It is when you flat a village without warning, etc it is wrong. But after the warning if the protected persons stay they are on their own. During WW2 in Italy and France (or ally) it was the only way to do it unless you wanted to take massive causalties and in the Korean War it was also a standard tactic when the North Korean Army would use an urban area as a shield. In fact the US/UN would have lost the Korean War if they had not followed he policy you disagree with. North Korea would have located their artillery inside cities and forced the population to stay in the cities.

As to the 4 million Lebanese. It does not matter. The south part is all Shiaa. The nonShiaa parts have pretty well be left alone (Hezbollah has even started using some Christian villages in south Lebanon for rocket launchs know Israel does not really want to damage them as they are not actively supporting Hezbolllah.

As to the so called “hearts and minds”. A US Army colonel retired who was an FAO (foreign affairs officer) in the Middle East for 15 years wrote in ARMY (the largest association for the US Army) that it was a waste of time. Nothing that the West can do is going to change their mind about the West and Israel in particular. It is a lot like with the war with Japan and German. The American Civil War actually dragged out for about two more years with a massive lost of life than it should have over what we today called “hearts and minds”. After 1863 the Union realized it was a waste of time and got down to business.

And a good example of why groups like Hezbollah will not hug their civilian population and urban centers to reduce the effectiveness of modern state armies is in 1998 Turkey and Syria. Syria was giving training camps, weapons and safe haven to the Kurdish PKK group. AFter one horrible strike by the Pkk against a village and school in Turkey, Turkey moved it is reported 15 divisions to the Syrian border and ordered all 8 inch self propelled cannons (they are one of the few to still have the) to the border and told Syria to totally shut down and stop supporting PKK. Syria knew that with Turkey it would be a waste of time to use a city like the PLO did in Beirut. And they complied. Also Iran kept their mouths shut about the subject.

The US made two huge mistakes on this subject. The first time was when the Israelis made up their minds they weren’t going to take massive losses and use infantry to clean the PLO out of the edge of Beirut in 1982 (the civilian population had already left) and started with artillery and bombing big time. Reagan unfortunately who had never seen war watched the shelling and thought civilians were dying in large number (they weren’t, the biggest civilian deaths was when the Syrians took over about 1985 and finished off the Christian, Druze and Sunni militias pretty well leveling Beirut). He forced Begin to call it off. That set a bad precedent that a lot of Arabs and Moslems noticed. Then came Chechnya and Grozny. The US made another huge error again in condemning Russia (Russia had tried once without artillery and we know the results). Since then the Moslem world has claimed a Kings-X in warfare.

Finally, it is not a matter of “if” but “when” about the Geneva Convention of 1949. There is no way the US and other nations can combat a military force like Hezbollah unless it is willing to take massive causaulties. The subject of the Geneva Convention 1949 will have to be revisited. In fact I predict that some nations will withdraw from the GC 1949 and revert back to the pre-1954 (when it went into effect) laws of warfare.

Jack E. Hammond

* “Those in control of territory must endeavor to remove the civilian
population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from
the vicinity of military objects; Avoid locating military objectives within or
near densely populated areas; Take the other necessary precautions to protect civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their
control against the dangers resulting from military operations.” (Article 58
of the Protocal Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed
Conflicts, Geneva Convention on Warfare 1949)

* The 1949 Geneva Convention convicts Hamas and Hezbollah both and would defend IDF actions in one sentence. That sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section 28. It reads: “The presence of a protected persons may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

* “While there are many things we can do in the field of information warfare
and cultural diplomacy, our main task is to contain the expansionist drive
within the Islamist movement. As history has shown again and again, when
totalitarian movements are contained they tend to implode. The radical
Islamist worldview can offer nothing to fellow Moslims except promises of
renewed glory. Its decline and ultimate demise will not be the result of
some hearts and minds campagin or a more balanced policy in the Middle East.
It will be brought about by a steadfast United States with a tough policy
that does not bend to intimidation, or allow the facilitators of violence in
the Western intelligentsia to minimize the Islamist outrages and and endemic
brutality.” (by Colonel Norvell B. DeAtkine in ARMY/January 2006 in an
article titled `Islam, Islamism and Terrorism”. Colonel DeAtkine-retired is a US
Army Foreign Area Specialists in Moslem nations and has lived in the Middle
East for 8 years and toured and study the Middle East for 15 years after)