iran fighter

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Boroda
You mean - who was murdered in Hague? Overthrown? You mean - won the election and then resigned to avoid bloodshed?

avoid bloodshed??? LOL - you best put down the bottle bud - he was the next thing to hitler. of course he had others do his blood letting...


of course just more western "lies".. but do tell us how we faked the mass graves of boys and men

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Al Gore might have invented the internet, but Boroda sure invented the parallel reality.

[Angus]

Boroda, you may hack & slash at will, but the fact remains that when the US armour met the USSR one, be it tanks or aircraft, the USSR stuff got rather much screwed. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugo or anything.
But again, it is not all the hardware.

Old saying is "in England it's not the weapon, but the man behind it"

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Eagler
avoid bloodshed??? LOL - you best put down the bottle bud - he was the next thing to hitler. of course he had others do his blood letting...


of course just more western "lies".. but do tell us how we faked the mass graves of boys and men

Slobo helds the responsibility fior the civil war in Yugosavia. It's a fact. Thanks to him - our Kremlin dreamers had a good example of what not to do.

What I meant was his resignation after Socialist party won the elections in 2001 (IIRC), but mob in the street installed Koshtinica as a president.

Mass graves - tell me exactly where they were found in Kosovo. Indeed it was a fake. Sorry. Do you know that Hague tribunal dropped accusations in genocide for Miloshevich? You didn't? Do you have access to his speeches in Hague? You don't? Well, so it goes.

Calling a person who died fighting for his nation's right to exist "hitler" is pretty stupid.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Angus
Boroda, you may hack & slash at will, but the fact remains that when the US armour met the USSR one, be it tanks or aircraft, the USSR stuff got rather much screwed. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugo or anything.
But again, it is not all the hardware.

Old saying is "in England it's not the weapon, but the man behind it"

Exactly. Arabic countries are the best example so far.

BTW, you are completely wrong about Korea and Vietnam. Soviet air defence acheived great results there.

Soviet hardware, just as American one, shows all it's advantages when used in complex, and no country except USA and USSR could afford building such an integrated system.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Boroda
Exactly. Arabic countries are the best example so far.

You may indeed have a point there, the only conflicts the Arabs have won were against the French so perhaps their long line of defeats against western hardware (try 150 to 0 with Migs versus McDonnel-Douglas in Lebannon) were not the result of deficient Soviet equipment.

Of course the Soviet-bloc weapons use by Soviet operators didn't fare so well in afghanistan now did they?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Boroda
Calling a person who died fighting for his nation's right to exist "hitler" is pretty stupid.

the hitler reference is to the genocide he condoned
I'm sure it is all western lies and the truth can only be found in your motherland - cheers!!

[Mr Nice]

Originally posted by Angus
Boroda, you may hack & slash at will, but the fact remains that when the US armour met the USSR one, be it tanks or aircraft, the USSR stuff got rather much screwed. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugo or anything.
But again, it is not all the hardware.

Old saying is "in England it's not the weapon, but the man behind it"

So....... Soviet hardware sucks and ALSO Soviet training sucks. LOL.

And the funny part; Boroda agreed!

Let's sum it up.

1. US hardware always pounds Soviet hardware into the ground. (check)

2. Training is more of an issue than hardware. The people who use Soviet hardware are trained by Soviets, and STILL manage to lose. (check)

Summary: Soviet hardware and training all combine to form a consistant loser to any US hardware and training.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Edbert1
You may indeed have a point there, the only conflicts the Arabs have won were against the French so perhaps their long line of defeats against western hardware (try 150 to 0 with Migs versus McDonnel-Douglas in Lebannon) were not the result of deficient Soviet equipment.

Of course the Soviet-bloc weapons use by Soviet operators didn't fare so well in afghanistan now did they?

1) 150:0 in Lebanon? I guess you mean 1982? Bekaa valley? According to Soviet data - Syrian air force did much better then that 21s as a bait and 23ML as a long-range killers vs Jewish F-15s - by modest estimations it was at least one 21 for one F-15. 150:0 is probably right only if you speak about initial strike against Syrian airfields.

2) Israeli propaganda never mentions losses from Soviet SAMs in 1982. USSR sent several regiments (including conscripted personell) to Syria in 1982, and their tactics is in PVO learning books now. They didn't invent anything, my Uncle said that they worked mostly on manual tracking from ambushes in Vietnam. Uncle was a targeting officer on S-75 in Vietnam, 4 confirmed kills, got severely wounded by one of the first HARMs.

3) I am on Israeli side now. They are the only nation that completley supports Russia in Chechnya.

4) In Afghanistan USSR did pretty well, withdrawal in 1989 was only a political decision, in fact - a crime.

5) In 2001 Russia sent lots of hardware to Northern Alliance, armour, small arms, etc, NA commanders wanted it badly, so we had to install two pontoon bridges across Pianj river on the border line. AFAIK it never reached Western media.

[Angus]

Yes, the Syrians had a good score, and Ribbentropf never met Molotov

Live in your own Disneylandsky, but the bottom line is that the Israelis have spanked everybody that had a scruffle with them. Mostly that was old western allies training and arms vs the old of the USSR.

And now, the times are different, the lines are different, and as pointed out here:
"3) I am on Israeli side now. They are the only nation that completley supports Russia in Chechnya."

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Mr Nice
So....... Soviet hardware sucks and ALSO Soviet training sucks. LOL.

And the funny part; Boroda agreed!

Let's sum it up.

1. US hardware always pounds Soviet hardware into the ground. (check)

2. Training is more of an issue than hardware. The people who use Soviet hardware are trained by Soviets, and STILL manage to lose. (check)

Summary: Soviet hardware and training all combine to form a consistant loser to any US hardware and training.

Good to see your first post answering me

Soviet hardware is the worst nightmare for US forces. Check Vietnam experience, in Shaw's bible i have read about US pilots scared to death about SAMs, they couldn't do anything.

Best results were usually achieved by Soviet personell, like 64th IAK in Korea, fighting hordes of "UN" planes. Imagine less then 50 MiGs stopping the power of the half of the world... Making 3 (three) passes on a formation of 50 B-29s, shooting down 2 of them and damaging the third...

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Mr Nice
So....... Soviet hardware sucks and ALSO Soviet training sucks. LOL.

And the funny part; Boroda agreed!

Let's sum it up.

1. US hardware always pounds Soviet hardware into the ground. (check)

2. Training is more of an issue than hardware. The people who use Soviet hardware are trained by Soviets, and STILL manage to lose. (check)

Summary: Soviet hardware and training all combine to form a consistant loser to any US hardware and training.

Hello Mr Nice. Always a pleasure to meet NEW oclub members  Were are you from sir?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Angus
Yes, the Syrians had a good score, and Ribbentropf never met Molotov

Live in your own Disneylandsky, but the bottom line is that the Israelis have spanked everybody that had a scruffle with them. Mostly that was old western allies training and arms vs the old of the USSR.

Israel has 2 times more tanks that it's opponents. As Napoleon said - god is on the side of bigger battalions.

Estimated efficiency of Israeli "Tsahal" is 1.5:1 against Arabs and something like 1.2:1 compared to Soviet Army. But you have to understand that people fighting for their homes are a little bit (i'm sarcastic) more motivated then aggressors.

[Angus]

"As Napoleon said - god is on the side of bigger battalions."

Didn't work always.
Look at Hitler's army against the UK, France & Lowlands for instance...

And Israels opponents are very much bigger than the Israelies in terms of almost everything, this is a false statement.

However, the the whole matter is more complicated than that.....

[ViFF]

Boroda my friend, you are incorrect.

In 1982 Israeli losses in the air were minimal. Israel is a democratic government, an open society with freedom of speech and media. Because of this (and unlike other countries) we can't keep our losses hidden or classified.

If you look at the amount of losses for the IAF in equipment and personnel, it agrees with "our" version of events.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/SGC.htm

The resulting   overwhelming  IAF victory  over  Syrian  SAM's   and
interceptors  has  been  described  in  detail  in  a  number  of
publications. 42  Briefly,  the  IAF  had  possessed  a  plan  for
attacking the SAM sites in the Bekaa at least since the summer of
1981.  By  midday  on 9 June,  RPV's had located most of the  SAM
sites  and had relayed pictures back to Northern Command and  the
IAF's Northern Regional Control Unit.
     At  1400,   the  attack  began.  RPV's  simulated  attacking
aircraft,  forcing the Syrians to switch on their acquisition and
fire  control  radars,  and in some cases actually to engage  the
RPV's.  The drones pinpointed the locations of radars and missile
sites and relayed the information to Israeli E-2C Hawkeye and the
RC-707 control aircraft.  As the Hawkeyes and specially  equipped
tactical  aircraft  and   RPV's conducted electronic  jamming  and
deception,  a flight of 96 IAF planes attacked the missile sites.
Led  by  a flight of F-4's armed with Maverick and  Shrike  anti-
radiation missiles which destroyed most of the radar systems, IAF
F-4,  F-15,  F-16,  and Kfir C-2 aircraft destroyed the batteries
one-by-one  using a variety of ordnance -- laser-guided  and  tv-
guided bombs; television, infra-red, and anti-radiation missiles;
and even iron bombs.  At the same time, the IDF artillery provided
suppression  on  all  batteries and anti-aircraft  gun  locations
within range.  A second wave of 92 IAF planes struck at 1550.  As
this wave attacked,  Syrian interceptors joined the fray,  and in
the  ensuing air battle 29 Syrian  MiG-21,  -23,  -25,  and  SU-7
aircraft were shot down.  By the end of the day, 41 Syrian planes
had  been  destroyed in air-to-air combat,  mainly by F-15's  but
also  by  other IAF planes using AIM-9L Sidewinder  missiles  and
Israeli-modified versions of the AIM-7 -- Shafir 2 and Python  3.
By day's end, 17 of the 19 SAM batteries had been destroyed.

The  main  battles  of 10 June were fought  in  the  Eastern
Sector,  between the IDF and the Syrian 1st Armored Division. The
Syrian  air force again sent up interceptors as the IAF destroyed
the  remaining  two SAM batteries,  resulting in 25  more  Syrian
MiG's  being shot down.

The SAM sites the article speaks about were SA-6 and SA-8 systems, which at the time were the biggest headache for the IDF. Soviet hardware maybe is good, but maybe only in soviet hands