I’m afraid you’re misunderstanding the situation. War is a political act. Wars are fought to achieve political ends. Military actions are means to achieve those political ends. One can win a war without winning battles. Indeed, the ideal war (from the winner’s point of view) is one in which the enemy is forced into a situation in which he has to surrender without fighting.

I’m aware of that Her von Clausewitz 😉

In the case of the Kosovo war, it’s not relevant what the outcome or cost would have been if NATO had sent in ground troops, since the war was won without them. The economy of Serbia (& hence, ultimately, its ability to support its armed forces) was collapsing under the impact of the war. Yes, the politicians took the decision to give in, but that was because it was blindingly obvious that the longer the war went on, the less there was to fight for.

And that’s why I said the politicians in the first place. As the VJ suggested to the Government that the war was to be avoided at all costs. They were more than aware of superiority of their adversaries and they knew there was no way to win the war. The only thing they could have done, was what they exactly did – to play the game of cat and mouse, give the ground forces as much cover as possible and inflict as much damage as possible to the attacking force…
So, if they (the politicians) have already entered into this “venture”, it was better to capitulate after 10 days (and not 78), or not capitulate at all. As NATO had already crippled the country so badly and they were running out of useful targets:D

I’m afraid it was a complete & total victory, regardless of how much of the VJ was intact. Serbia lost everything it fought for, & a great deal more besides. That’s how you measure victory & defeat, not by counting casualties & destroyed weapons. Note that the US military knows this perfectly well: Vietnam is still a painful memory.

Well, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia hoped for something else after signing the Kumanovo Agreement and after United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 was brought. And on those basis they withdrew the army from Kosovo (among others there was this important part: “after withdrawal a small number of Yugoslav and Serbian military and police personnel could return to Kosovo to carry out functions contained in the annex of the resolution“).

The only way for Serbia to win was to have avoided war in the first place. That would have been a real victory.

As much as I blame them (politicians) for mistakes that were made and more time passes by, I really get the felling that this war was hardly avoidable.

I’m sorry for this off topic 🙂

Most of them non-Serbs killed in mass groups by Serbs trying to suppress independence movements.

It’s really sad to see that someone who’s much more knowledgeable than most of his countrymen falls for cheap propaganda.

Ah yes, the KLA – which I was very well aware of, but ignored, because they didn’t exactly achieve much in the way of fixing Serb troops for air attack. As I recall, they lacked organisation or heavy weapons, & were unable to force Serb units to mass, thus providing NATO with targets that could be identified reliably from the air. NATO was unwilling (for many reasons) to carry out air strikes on locations identified by the KLA, & for many of the same reasons, NATO didn’t put forward air controllers into KLA units, so there wasn’t really any tactical air support of the KLA.

So it did matter whose troops were there. Unreliable irregulars without NATO FACs are very different from regular NATO units tied into NATO comms.

You, swerve, are now swerving from what he said.
One of the main tasks of the air defense was to obstruct NATO as much as possible and provide as much cover as they could to the ground forces which operated in Kosovo and against the KLA(I can’t say for FAC’s but foreign military advisors and instructors have been present within the KLA units during 98/99). And even without FAC’s on the ground NATO aviation was in constant hunt for hardware of the ground forces and for that reason only any help of AD was more than welcome.
I think that was the point he was trying to make.

Ultimately, the ratio of strength was so massively weighted against the Serbs that NATO could choose to wage a war which was inefficient in terms of use of resources, in order to minimise its own casualties – and still win. The terms on which the war was fought were chosen by NATO. The tempo of action was dictated by NATO. Serbia fought to keep Kosovo, & the war ended with Serb troops withdrawing from Kosovo & being replaced by NATO troops. Complete & total defeat of the JNA. It conceded victory without even fighting NATO ground forces, so the suggestion that “there would be many, many dead US and NATO soldiers ” is proved wrong by reality. There weren’t. The air campaign succeeded. NATO won without having to fight on the ground.

First off, the JNA ceased to exist some 7 years prior to the conflict. The armed forces were called then the Yugoslav Army – Vojska Jugoslavije (VJ).
Then also, I wouldn’t call it a “complete & total defeat” of the VJ, as that would imply that all of its resources and hardware were destroyed or put out of action, when in reality more than 90% remained intact. I would rather call it a defeat of the politicians in this case. If NATO was so sure in their ground forces, they wouldn’t be forced to hit almost every factory, continue destroying civilian infrastructure and “make so many mistakes” (hitting some hospitals and trains) which they often call collateral damage.

At the end of the day, NATO did what it wanted and it’s really difficult to predict how would a ground intrusion end. If they would have gone till the end, NATO would prevail for sure. The only question that will puzzle us is: at what price;)

My query was the NATO and Russian designation for the Igla ATA missiles as the term Igla is used for a series of anti-air missiles.

It’s either the 9K38 Igla (SA-18) or newer variant 9K338 Igla-S (SA-24) and judging by that photo I’d say it’s the later one.

For example, we have two aerodynamically identical planes. One is 2 tones heavier than the other, but the heavier plane has better thrust to weight ratio (4 tones more thrust)
Now, both planes are traveling at the same speed. In one moment they turn at the same time pulling their max G. If they pull 9Gs, heavier plane has 18 more tones of inertial force fighting against the same lift coefficient that both plane produce.
Lighter plane has more lift reserve for better turn rate and smaller turn radius. Heavier plane would simply drop out of lighter plane turning line because his lifting force has much more weight to “fight” with.
Better thrust to weight ratio translates to better specific exes power, better acceleration, slower speed loss etc. but won`t help much at initial turning.

Does this apply to supersonic or subsonic regime of flight? Or to both of them?
Also, shouldn’t structural changes play a significant factor when it comes to this? Because we are not talking of two cubes of same dimensions, but different weight:confused:

Quick look at DoJ statistics shows than in the U.S. annually around 5.5M violent crimes are reported, under 10% of them involve a firearm. Also qualified estimates show that 75% of criminals will stand back from committing a violent crime when they know the victim has a firearm. In the U.S. annually roughly 10k murders are commited with firearms (almost 90% of them by people with a criminal record!), while around 1M are reported as having been prevented by firearms. And: When during the early 1990’s in D.C. they banned handgun ownership, the rate of murder with a firearm increased by three quarters. Since in FL they introduced “right to carry” in 2010, the rate of violent deaths by firearms has dropped one third, same can be seen in a number of other states.

So the answer is: No, banning private handgun ownership is not the solution (besides all the philosophical questions about the rights of a citizen of a Republic). One might actually argue that had there been some CCWs in that theatre this could not have taken on such a dimension.

x2

Almost the same I’ve been told by my uncle (homicide inspector for 42 years) and a close friend of mine (deputy commander of the Special Anti-terrorist Unit, has been to FBI academy). Both of them have been doing a research for quite some time on this matter in Montenegro, heavily relying on American experiences. They’ve pretty much come to similar conclusion as you have.
Similar pattern (forbidding carrying of firearms which triggers higher number of homicides) could be found in some ex Yugoslav republics, but the lawmakers find this issue at a bottom of their agendas.

???

Stop wondering, that is just hot dog 😀

That’s just the photo I need, and it looks recent enough too.
Maybe the R-27T doesn’t have a range much greater than the R-73 to justify its existence?

What do you exactly mean? The R-73 should have a max range of 30km while the R-27T should have double that range.
But, then again, that was a usual combo for Fulcrums back in the day(2 R-27R + 4 R-73).