1MANhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa337.pdf
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/sep-oct/barlow.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/v1000.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/990600-bmd-rus.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/thistems.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/HL113.cfm
http://www.dia.mil/history/art/series_two.html
http://www.jamesoberg.com/heavens.html
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRH0012/FR0012e.htm
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/5hitech.htm
Need more?
1MANit is your turn to bolster your claim by data. I have no problem to exchange opinions as long that are presented by some data to verify those.
of the 727 F-15 only 227 are F-15 C/E and only 18 have APG-V2 (ASEA) radar, the other 500 are F-15 A/B (obsolete) in 2008
only around 350 F-16 Blk 40-60 are in the USAF the other 600+ are F-16 A-B’s obsolete
what are ya gonna say now, thats wrong the entire F-15/16/18’s are ALL upgraded to only “ONE” standard????????
1MANNATO’s November 1988 publication of force comparison data, ‘Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts’ was the first of its kind since 1984. The Warsaw Pact (WP) compilation on the ‘Correlation of Forces in Europe’, published at the end of January 1989, was its first ever such essay in military glasnost and, as such, a highly significant and very welcome breakthrough. Not surprisingly, there were significant diffferences between the data produced by the two sides’…
Some of the differences merely concern the overall scope of the assessments and the categories of equipment adressed, where there were mismatches. …
Starting with President Gorbachev’s UN speech of 7 December 1988, Warsaw Pact countries have announced a series of sizeable unilateral troops reductions and withdrawls to be effected by 1991, together with some substantial restructuring of remaining forces in the forward area.
In the hindsight, that did all start, when being surpassed by the events late 1989 and were open for all to see in 1990.
Most SU-forces were in the GDR and much less units in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. As the political events did show for all to see in that time-scale, more an occupying power, than a brother in arms. Politcal claims and reality are not the same!Just to remember, you have to fight with that at hand, at a given place and a given time. To claim you have something better does not change that.
This may be hard to believe, but based on my 9 1/2 years of studing the cold war and Russian stratagy, I can say with certainty, that ALL those publications, from field manuels in tanks, planes, and forced prepairdness that were available easily for the west to see, were nothing but “disinformation” no one in a real cold war, is going to make there moves readaly known to the enemy, I’m convinced Russia is using “The Art ofWar” stratagey to make the west “THINK” Russia’s weak.
1MAN“But then we were told the Patriot missile was a super missile and would protect the US and her allies in the region…”
who told you it was a ‘super missile’ – i thought that title was taken by the much vaunted (combat unproven) russian SAM systems. I for one certainly can’t recall ever hearing the patriot described as a ‘super missile’ :confused: I wonder if previous russian combat equipment is anything to go by just how badly will the Russian ‘super missiles’ fail… Edit: havn’t we already seen modern so called cutting edge Russian supplied air defenses fail miserably in Syria recently? It dosn’t hold much hope does it for future customers.
Oh come now not again with your half researched reporting, do more reading, and you’ll see:
1. It takes around 3 months for a crew to be trainned properly to operate a new SAM, the jewish incursion into Syria happend about 3 weeks to 1 month after Syria got that new SAM system.
2. Even if they were trained they still wouldn’t have shot them down because the jews flew outside of the SAMs range, I’ll give the links to show you latter.
1MANFor the benefit of the others.
The last Russian units did leave Germany in 1994. The GDR was gone in 1990 already.
When it is true, that the T-64 variants were limited to Russian units, that were no longer the top-end MBT in the mid 80s with the introduction of the T-72B variants.
The GSSD or Group of Soviet Forces in Germany did consist of 5 armies with 21 divisions, which were never equipped with T-64 alone. From the 70s till 1990, that were equipped with T-62, T-64 (from 1976 in GDR and from 1980 in Hungary f.e.), T-72 and T-80 (from 1984 in GDR) of different variants and related capabilities. Similar thing with the units and aircraft of 16th Air Army.
In 1990 the SU did field a varying range of systems, with very different qualities and combat capabilities. If the SU and the WP have had to fight with that at hand in 1990 and that is the reality, they had run in different results up down to the Iraqis. Similar situation in 1973 and 1982.
Just counting numbers and do assume that all were at top standard is a childish thinking. There was no shortage of money to built more MBTs in the West, but there was no need for that in general, when the other way around, the East did not trust in own quality, but was looking into higher numbers too. Both sides were confirmed some way by the results of the military conflicts fought by their clients and with their weaponary, be it quality or numbers in need.The MBFR (Forces Reduction) did give the NATO 11000 MBTs against 26500 MBTs for the WP and both sides did agree, that they have reached a combat balance by that. Not my guess, but an official results found by the military involved!
That is totaly untrue the whole USSR was “Quantity vs. USA’S “Quality” is pure propaganda, every nation has certain number of more “upgraded Tanks, Planes Helecopters that the rest, that why they are called “upgrades”, NO nation Not Russia not USA has an entire military wing that was nothing but upgrades during to cold war, please show us with sources if your going to respond by saying I’m wrong.
1MANYou did not realize the nonsense of that claim at wikipedia, did you?
It does take several years of expensive training to bring a tank-crew to top-level within an unit. That in mind someone ‘brainless” did claim, to threw that specialists away in crewing “monkey-assets”?!
In Israel just the selected view will become fighter pilots, when the ones behind did become tank-crews. After that all the other branches were allowed to select their soldiers.
Until you provide the proof that what’s said on Wiki is “nonsence” your just another rambler
1MANThe frontline troops of the SU in the GDR of 1990 did field T-72s built in the 70s up to examples built in the 80s. Differing from regiment to regiment. Similar thing with MiGs and Sukhois. So the Russians had to fight with their “monkey-assets” themselves in a war. Despite top priorty, that troops facing the NATO had an intresting collection of weaponary to stay polite. The GDR soldiers did realise for some time already, that the soldiers of the ‘Big Brother’ are not trained to “top” standard always to stay polite.
So we had to differ about face claiming and reality, but I am shure you will ignore that details for obvious reasons.
Please back up your claim with sources
1MANTrouble is though 1Man as i have already stated monkey model goods, whilst a bit worse are effectivly the same weapon system and an awful advertisment for Russian designed weapons. This is the fact you don’t seem able to face.
Say your words in simple ways, insted of using, “round about” words:
1. Are you trying to say in your above post that the “Monkey Models” were different, but they weren’t that much different, there for Russian T-72 from Russia would have met the same fate against the M1’s?
1MANI have to smile, when all do avoid to look into the details of 1990/91 carefully.
The T-72M1 was the standard MBT of the WP, be it Czechoslovakia or GDR, which had to face the western MBTs like the Iraq. The Assad Babil (Iraqi T-72 variant) was even more advanced like the ordinary T-72/T-72M at hand.
First it is the ‘aiming-system’ what does make the difference and second the well trained crew to make use of that. Even the best trained crew can not bridge the gap in technology in a standard situation. There was a reason, why the SU and the WP did stick to much higher numbers of MBTs compared to NATO ones for decades. In that years the Iraq had the money to buy Eastern and Western weaponary and an intresting partner for the future. The Russians had to stick to high quality MBTs, when it comes to numbers, the Iraq did switch to medium quality Chinese MBTs already.
In your imaginary mind yes, but in the REAL world no:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_model
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
1MANWho is the one, who did wrote that nonsense below?
What are you trying to say, that I was saying that Iraq had Nightvision/Thermal, and DU rounds:D
1MAN“If the Iraqis had somehow been able to retain air control over their own forces we would have seen smoking columns of Abrams and Bradleys.”
Wow, you really believe that? Gerry , the iraqi armour was tottaly outclassed, your failing into 1Mans trap of creating fantasy situations where the iraqis would have one had it been for what x-y-z. You can keep peddling these lines or you can simply accept that history showed just how capable the Russian armour was.
Read his lines VERY carefully, he claims it’s “Russian armour” when it’s not, he claims I’m implying something about “if Iraq had air power” which I haven’t go back and read my posts, all one has to do is read his flip flop statements and you’ll see, I can’t figure out, if he’s trying to say Kontak-5 would have been penatrated, because he makes no scense, just read my posts in “chronilogical order” carfully, then read his, you can clearly see, wherre he “assumes” things I’m saying, despite the fact I’m being VERY clear
1MANI’m not ignoring any facts at all, i’m just explaining to you that all the spinning in the world won’t change history. Your fabled Iraqi armour was crushed with ease because they bought inferior Russian designed goods, end of story.
This guy now says “My fabled Iraqi armour” is he now saying I said the “downgraded” Iraqi armour was capable of standing up to the M1, or is he saying I’m saying Iraq HAD Kontakt-5, Nightvision/Thermal, and DU rounds, and still got beaten, as you can see he constantly tries his hardest to mix his statements up to try and paint a picture as if he’s disprooving me:D
1MANmore excuses it would seem, they were still a Russian design and highly representative of Russian tanks, to try and say other wise is rather nieve to say the least.
This what the comments that one who’s been disprooven makes, they relise the tanks were downgraded, and still try and make “EXCUSES” by trying to make it seem as if the WERE Russian T-72’s.
If it was the other way around and the U.S. was using old tanks and Iraq was using Soviet built T-72 people like him would spend the entire day explaining in extream detail, with FACTS why the U.S. lost, but when it comes to Russia, he likes to ignore the FACTS of why the Iraq tanks were destroyed
1MANThere’s no reason to make things personal. It’s no wonder that people in this forum have difficulty getting along with one another.
Wouldn’t they want to test their capabilities whenever the rare opportunity arises?
They’ve have been for 40+ years, shall I post some links;)
1MANAnyway the point was, and i’m quite sure you still won’t get it, is that Iraqi armour got beat fair and square, no amount of wriggling about bleating on about konkat will change that, that is the hard fact of it and is undisputable
I’ve provide sources for most of my claims, do you even remember why I commented on the Iraqi Armor-Dersertstorm thingy? you claimed in the thread that was closed that Desertstorm prooved Russia stuff is weak/usless, and so all I’ve been doing is showing you that, with the exeption of small arms, the U.S. has never really went against Russian stuff, just down graded exports, which I jhave proven with documented facts
Sign In
