Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: blur on March 27, 2003, 06:47:53 PM
-
I don’t know if this has already been brought up but I’ve been reading these Russian intelligence dispatches for the past several days and I find them quite interesting. Yes, I realize they could be Russian propaganda but I find them a refreshing change from the US variety.
http://162.42.211.226/article2438.htm
-
thanks Blur
Crabofix
-
"During one of the Iraqi attacks yesterday against the US positions the Iraqis for the first time employed the "Grad" mobile multiple rocket launch systems [MLRS]. As the result an entire US unit was taken out of combat after sustaining up to 40 killed and wounded as well as losing up to 7 armored vehicles.
There are no other reports of any losses in this area [ An-Nasiriya] except for one US Marine drowning in one of the city's water canals and another Marine being killed by a sniper.
During the sand storm the coalition command lost contact with up to 4 coalition reconnaissance groups. Their whereabouts are being determined. It is still unknown what happened to more than 600 other coalition troops mainly from resupply, communications and reconnaissance units communication with which was lost during the past 24 hours."
"Intercepted radio communications show that at around 0615hrs this morning the lead of a flight of two A-10 ground attack planes detected a convoy of armored vehicles. Unable to see any markings identifying these vehicles as friendly and not being able to contact the convoy by radio the pilot directed artillery fire to the coordinates of the convoy.
Later it was discovered that this was a coalition convoy. Thick layers of dust covered up the identification markings - colored strips of cloth in the rear of the vehicles. Electronic jamming made radio contact impossible. First reports indicated that the US unit lost 50 troops killed and wounded. At least five armored vehicles have been destroyed, one of which was an Abrams tank."
Somehow I find this stuff hard to swallow. I like how the site url is an IP address. Anyway, if I were to believe US sources versus Russian sources...hmm hard decision...yeah right. :) ;)
-
this ones good for even more shiits and giggles.
Translation (http://english.pravda.ru/)
-
good old Pravda...best toilet paper for Russians since 1917 :)
-
The link above is from a mirror site. I believe this is the original:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/
-
Originally posted by udet
Anyway, if I were to believe US sources versus Russian sources...hmm hard decision...yeah right. :) ;)
Oh, you mean like:" MDW FACTORY DISCOVERED!" or "IRAQ FIRES GASGRENADES INTO KUWAIT!"?
Eat my...
Crabofix
-
I don't know. They probably have embedded reporters too.
-
Oh man, Venik, that guy is a riot!
-
NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN
Plans Under Way for Christianizing the Enemy
BY MARK O'KEEFE
c.2003 Newhouse News Service
Two leading evangelical Christian missionary organizations said Tuesday that they have teams of workers poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of a large Muslim population.
The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest Protestant denomination, and the Rev. Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse said workers are near the Iraq border in Jordan and are ready to go in as soon as it is safe. The relief and missionary work is certain to be closely watched because both Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention have been at the heart of controversial evangelical denunciations of Islam, the world's second largest religion.
Both organizations said their priority will be to provide food, shelter and other needs to Iraqis ravaged by recent war and years of neglect. But if the situation presents itself, they will also share their Christian faith in a country that's estimated to be 98 percent Muslim and about 1 percent Christian.
"We go where we have the opportunity to meet needs," said Ken Isaacs,international director of projects for Samaritan's Purse, located in Boone, N.C. "We do not deny the name of Christ. We believe in sharing him in deed and in word. We'll be who we are."
Mark Kelly, a spokesman for the Southern Baptists' International Mission Board, said $250,000 has already been spent to provide immediate needs, such as blankets and baby formula. Much more will follow, along with a more overt spiritual emphasis.
"Conversations about spiritual things will come about as people ask about our faith," said Kelly, based in Richmond, Va. "It's not going to be like what you might see in other countries where there's a preaching service held outside clinics and things like that."
Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, is urging caution for the two groups, as well as other evangelical organizations planning to go into Iraq.
"Evangelicals need to be sensitive to the circumstances of this country and its people," said Cizik, based in Washington, D.C. "If we are perceived as opportunists we only hurt our cause. If this is seen as religious freedom for Iraq by way of gunboat diplomacy, is that helpful? I don't think so. If that's the perception, we lose."
Graham, the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, has been less diplomatic about Islam than his father has been. Two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Franklin Graham called Islam "a very evil and wicked religion" during an interview on NBC, the television network. In his book published last year, "The Name," Graham wrote that "The God of Islam is not the God of the Christian faith." He went on to say that "the two are different as lightness and darkness."
On the eve of the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis last year, the Rev. Jerry Vines, a former denomination president, told several thousand delegates that Islam's Allah is not the same as the God worshipped by Christians. "And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah, either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist," Vines said.
Widespread condemnation of those comments followed from other Protestant leaders as well as from Catholic and Jewish groups. The Graham and Vines statements even created a problem for President Bush, who has called Islam a "religion of peace."
Bush, an evangelical Christian himself, has close ties to both Franklin Graham, who gave a prayer at his inauguration, and Southern Baptists, who are among his most loyal political supporters.
Isaacs, who works for Franklin Graham, refused to comment about his boss' views of Islam, except to say, "most of Franklin's work is to the Muslim world and those are sincere acts of love, concern and compassion."
In a written statement, Graham said: "As Christians, we love the Iraqi people, and we are poised and ready to help meet their needs. Our prayers are with the innocent families of Iraq, just as they are with our brave soldiers and leaders."
Isaacs said Samaritan's Purse has assembled a team of nine Americans and Canadians that includes veterans of war-relief projects in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Rwanda and Somalia. The teams include a doctor, an engineer and a water specialist.
They will bring resources that include a system that can provide drinking water for up to 20,000 people, material to build temporary shelters for more than 4,000 families, packages of household items for 5,000 families, and kits designed to meet the general medical needs of 100,000 people for three months.
So far, there's no budget for the effort because it's so fluid, said Jeremy Blume, a Samaritan's Purse spokesman, but donors are being asked to help. A Southern Baptist fund-raising drive is under way to help underwrite the cost, Kelly said. Both groups said only private donations have funded their plans thus far, with no government assistance in the works.
Southern Baptists, representing a denomination of 16 million members, have workers in Jordan waiting to help refugees. But so far, few refugees have arrived, perhaps because it's still too difficult for much of the population to maneuver between warring militaries on their way to the border, Kelly said.
Baptist Men, a national organization devoted to providing disaster relief work, has promised to send volunteers from the United States "on a moment's notice," Kelly said.
As soon as they gain access to northern Iraq, teams will go, Kelly said, with plans of feeding up to 10,000 or more people a day.
"The hope is that as the war front moves and the situation in the outlying areas improves, we'll be able to send mobile teams in.
"Our understanding of relief ministries is that anytime you give a cup of cold water in the name of Jesus you've shared God's love in a real physical way. That also raises the question as to why you did that. When people ask you, you explain that it's because of the love of God that has been poured out into my life and I have a deep desire that you know that same love as well."
(Mark O'Keefe can be contacted at mark.okeefe@newhouse.com)
ROFL .... you can lead a Muslim to water .... but you can't make him think. Shame on you evil Christians coming in and trying to brainwash those Muslims! They've had enough brainwashing in their lifetime as it is! ;)
Yeah ... these stories are a hoot! Thanks! :D
-
some of the stuff they put up is truly hilarious...
16:26
What Do Russians Read?
Nobody say for sure why people buy newspapers, to read or to wrap something. As it turned out, Russians prefer to read the press published in the regions, not that issued in the capital. This is seen from an analysis made by the RF Ministry of Press and recently published. I have no exact information at hand concerning the amount of audience of central and local online editions, such like the PRAVDA.Ru online newspaper. But as for printed newspapers, the advantage of the local press over the central one is obvious.
now we know where the onion mines their ideas.
-
Here other side beside the russian site (its our US feedbacks)that makes me wonder about all this Bush admins
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
Different source I found it very interesting not your daily CNN news. Take it how you want it
-
the news on the CNN website are pretty boring today. At least the rumor factories are up and running...
-
Yes bashwolf thank you for that unbiased site! :)
-
The Russians Coined the phrase "disinformation"
-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2434.htm
Robert S. Finnegan is the International Communications Editor for the Office of the Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Republic of Indonesia and a veteran investigative reporter. Recently working as the lead investigator for The Jakarta Post on the Bali bombing, the author has resided in Indonesia for three years and is a former Marine Corps Non-Commissioned Officer. He can be reached at: finnegan@cbn.net.id.
Is it real ... or is it "memory-x"? ;)
-
Man I love the internet. It gives a voice to all the delusional schizophrenics of the world. No matter how crazy the conspiracy theory - you can always find a website supporting it. God Bless Al Gore! :)
-
hehe funkedup not sure if you seruis or joking with me i find the site very mind boggling. and if your NP :)
-
"Intercepted radio transmissions"
LMFAO
-
"Electronic jamming made radio contact impossible."
THe A-10's didn't know the enemy was deploying radio jamming? Is there a toy prize in this box of cracker jacks? :rolleyes:
ra
-
Originally posted by bashwolf
hehe funkedup not sure if you seruis or joking with me i find the site very mind boggling. and if your NP :)
I'm serious, I find sites like that very entertaining.
A couple of years ago I had a war on here where a Russian guy was saying the moon landings didn't happen, and he came up with a bunch of nutball sites to support his opinion. Fortunately there are some even bigger nutball sites saying that Gagarin never orbited, so I fought back with that. :)
-
Originally posted by bashwolf
Here other side beside the russian site (its our US feedbacks)that makes me wonder about all this Bush admins
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
Different source I found it very interesting not your daily CNN news. Take it how you want it
Seems likes it's basically one of the many anti-semitic/anti-Israeli websites. I noticed a few headlines on that site trying to allude that Israel has something to do with September 11th. Yeah, this 'news' site is really credible.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by blur
I don’t know if this has already been brought up but I’ve been reading these Russian intelligence dispatches for the past several days and I find them quite interesting. Yes, I realize they could be Russian propaganda but I find them a refreshing change from the US variety.
http://162.42.211.226/article2438.htm
If this is from the GRU, no wonder the Russians lost the cold war.
Ack-Ack
-
Most that "GRU" stuff is probably crap, but they have the authorized number of AH-64D correct.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_toe.htm
-
Think thats funny, try this one../...
bush at war (http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/bush_bravely_leads.html)
-
How many planes was it we lost over Kosovo according to the Russians? :D
Daff
-
I just wonder how many journalists they got around :>
To find out casualties of both sides, they should have reporters on both sides and in contact with the unit leaders - otherwise there can be just as well 0 to 300 casualties.
-
Russian Media Information Trail.
1. Russian Trucker brings weapon parts to Iraq.
2. Gets the "real news" from the Iraqi.
3. Brings it back to Russia.
4. Russian media denounces the American propaganda machine. American Journalists are really in Hollywood, pretending to be embedded, since the US has already lost the war.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
"Intercepted radio transmissions"
LMFAO
Russia has several radio-recon ships in Persian Gulf. Just as it had 2 ships in Adriatics in 1999 during the cgression against Yugoslavia.
And we still have the greatest recon sattelite group. In 1999 there were rumours that Russia supplied Serbs with sat recon info, helping them to intercept NATO bandits using rocket ambushes. Russian reporters in Serbian Aircraft defence said they turned on targeting radars only a few minutes before bandits reached SAM guaranteed hit range, and changed position immediately, before HARMs hit the place.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Russia has several radio-recon ships in Persian Gulf. Just as it had 2 ships in Adriatics in 1999 during the cgression against Yugoslavia.
And we still have the greatest recon sattelite group. In 1999 there were rumours that Russia supplied Serbs with sat recon info, helping them to intercept NATO bandits using rocket ambushes. Russian reporters in Serbian Aircraft defence said they turned on targeting radars only a few minutes before bandits reached SAM guaranteed hit range, and changed position immediately, before HARMs hit the place.
sorry, but detecting radar is a little different than intercepting and decoding encrypted burst transmissions.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
sorry, but detecting radar is a little different than intercepting and decoding encrypted burst transmissions.
"We have interesting devices. But we'll not tell you about them"
:)
AFAIK not long ago British army had to use cellular phones for battlefield comm on the maneuvers, because their radio equipment was designed in the 70s. As usually I "sell it for the same price I bought it", read it in a Russian IT magazine.
I think that even if all communication is "scrambled burst transmittions", that I doubt, you can discover many interesting things even if you can't decode it. Otherwise why bother and send recon ships? Our Navy can find many other ways to entertain.
-
100% of all russian info must be false - after all they are not americans, excremely competent in everything they do, including truth suppression and used to be under communist rule untill a dozen years ago. :rolleyes:
They predicted that US invasion of Iraq will not be a walk-in with population and all iraqi military greeting US troops as liberators and that US would need more troops and more time than "walk-in" scenario predicted.
They even invented a ridiculous term "fedayin" and insinuated that there are tens of thousands of those in Iraq willing to fight us. That cannot possibly be true because untill two days ago we have not heard about any mention of "fedayin" or expectations to fight them from US Defence Department or military briefings.
miko
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"We have interesting devices. But we'll not tell you about them"
:)
AFAIK not long ago British army had to use cellular phones for battlefield comm on the maneuvers, because their radio equipment was designed in the 70s. As usually I "sell it for the same price I bought it", read it in a Russian IT magazine.
I think that even if all communication is "scrambled burst transmittions", that I doubt, you can discover many interesting things even if you can't decode it. Otherwise why bother and send recon ships? Our Navy can find many other ways to entertain.
Some radio communications aren't even coded. However, the article said they intercepted A10 transmissions.
While anything is possible, I highly doubt it. Even assuming they did, would they release that to the press? Would they want us to know they can do it, so that we'd change it?
-
Why would a flight of A-10's call in artillery to hit a moving convoy?
Last time I checked, the A-10 was designed for just such a target. WHy would they not engage the target themselves?
Even if the rails were empty, which is unheard of in a combat sortie, they still would have the Avenger.
Makes no sense to me.
I don't believe the American Media...but I believe the foreign media even less. And if Borada is purporting it to be true, well.....
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Why would a flight of A-10's call in artillery to hit a moving convoy?
Last time I checked, the A-10 was designed for just such a target. WHy would they not engage the target themselves?
Because they are simply scared of AAA fire. I think it's pretty obvious.
-
Martlet: Some radio communications aren't even coded. However, the article said they intercepted A10 transmissions.
While anything is possible, I highly doubt it.
May be they did not. Most likely they saw from their satellites the A-10s taking off, flying over unidentified dusty column, some transmission emitting from those A-10s, US artillery commencing firing shortly after and that column being blown to pieces, possibly followed by panicked radio calls from that same column in the open and plain english "We are being blowen the s#$t out of, where the heck is the supression and support, you REMFs!".
That's how things usually happen in wartime and then some journalist writes how intelligence "read" the transmissions, etc. That is probably how it must have happened if that happened at all.
Which, while regrettable, would not be out of the ordinary in any conflict to raise unbelief. After all, there are quite a few confirmed cases of friendly fire even in this conflict.
miko
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Russia has several radio-recon ships in Persian Gulf. Just as it had 2 ships in Adriatics in 1999 during the cgression against Yugoslavia.
And we still have the greatest recon sattelite group. In 1999 there were rumours that Russia supplied Serbs with sat recon info, helping them to intercept NATO bandits using rocket ambushes. Russian reporters in Serbian Aircraft defence said they turned on targeting radars only a few minutes before bandits reached SAM guaranteed hit range, and changed position immediately, before HARMs hit the place.
So Boroda how long does it take to dismantle a Soviet built Air Defense setup? My guess based on the similar setups within US Air Defense capability is that it takes about 5 minutes to clear the area once you set up. Now a HARM travels pretty quickly on its way to a stored location from the radar signal. I seriously doubt they can get out that fast.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Martlet: Some radio communications aren't even coded. However, the article said they intercepted A10 transmissions.
While anything is possible, I highly doubt it.
May be they did not. Most likely they saw from their satellites the A-10s taking off, flying over unidentified dusty column, some transmission emitting from those A-10s, US artillery commencing firing shortly after and that column being blown to pieces, possibly followed by panicked radio calls from that same column in the open and plain english "We are being blowen the s#$t out of, where the heck is the supression and support, you REMFs!".
That's how things usually happen in wartime and then some journalist writes how intelligence "read" the transmissions, etc. That is probably how it must have happened if that happened at all.
Which, while regrettable, would not be out of the ordinary in any conflict to raise unbelief. After all, there are quite a few confirmed cases of friendly fire even in this conflict.
miko
keep stretching.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Because they are simply scared of AAA fire. I think it's pretty obvious.
Uh....No.
A-10's are designed to fly CAS in face heavy ground fire, hit their targets and return to base safely.
If it's one thing the A-10 does not fear, it's AAA.
The "Bathtub" can take a 23mm HE AA shell, and keep on flying. Now this is not the entire aircraft, but it is indicative of what the plane was deigned for.
Plus, armed with AGM-65's the A-10 can attack from a stand off distance of 17 miles. The "Maverick" is s Launch and Leave AIr to ground missle, allowing the A-10 to engage ground target while under fire, launch the weapon, and then take immediate evasive action.
A-10's can carry up to 6 Mavericks on a single sortie, and are the most common type of missle used by this aircraft.
-
Stretching what? Didn't my phrase "That is probably how it must have happened if that happened at all."[/i] indicate that I have no claim whether that particular incident is true, not having been there?
Or you find a flaw in the logic of my hypothetical scenario, having a lot of experience in those matters? Why don't you share your thought with us then, what those logical flaws are? What did I stretch?
Or do you not believe that friendly fire incidents have already happened and will happen again in this conflict?
Or maybe you are just full of s#%t and cannot scroll past my name without issuing an empty blurb, even if you have nothing of substance to say?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Or maybe you are just full of s#%t and cannot scroll past my name without issuing an empty blurb, even if you have nothing of substance to say?
miko
That's the one. It's kind of like the Enquirer. I can pick up that magazine, read who puts out the information inside, then throw the whole thing away, safe in my knowledge that what is printed inside is mostly false or speculative.
-
Reschke: So Boroda how long does it take to dismantle a Soviet built Air Defense setup? My guess based on the similar setups within US Air Defense capability is that it takes about 5 minutes to clear the area once you set up. Now a HARM travels pretty quickly on its way to a stored location from the radar signal. I seriously doubt they can get out that fast.
The whole setup, I don't know - but a radar that can be located pretty far from the other components of the complex and is mounted on a mobile platform? Probably very quickly if the engine is running and the crew is motivated to stay alive. 1 minute? 2?
I talked to some people who manned such installations in Egypt in the 70s and I believe they must have advanced in portability even further since then.
miko
-
Martlet: That's the one... I can pick ... read who puts out the information inside, then throw the whole thing away, safe in my knowledge that what is printed inside is mostly false or speculative.
OK then. It is certainly true that some stuff in my posts is openly marked by myself as speculative and since you do not care to argue what exactly is wrong, we will just have to take your word for that.
miko
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
some of the stuff they put up is truly hilarious...
16:26
What Do Russians Read?
Nobody say for sure why people buy newspapers, to read or to wrap something. As it turned out, Russians prefer to read the press published in the regions, not that issued in the capital. This is seen from an analysis made by the RF Ministry of Press and recently published. I have no exact information at hand concerning the amount of audience of central and local online editions, such like the PRAVDA.Ru online newspaper. But as for printed newspapers, the advantage of the local press over the central one is obvious.
now we know where the onion mines their ideas.
bla-bla-bla... You are incompetent
-
Originally posted by --am--
bla-bla-bla... You are incompetent
GREAT COMEBACK.
now that really proves your argument
-
Originally posted by Martlet
GREAT COMEBACK.
now that really proves your argument
I live on Ural (if you know that this such)
I work in a printing house of the issuing newspaper.
I use the Internet since 1996 years
I laughed when I read this bosh
-
Originally posted by --am--
I live on Ural (if you know that this such)
I work in a printing house of the issuing newspaper.
I use the Internet since 1996 years
I laughed when I read this bosh
This explains a lot to me.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Uh....No.
A-10's are designed to fly CAS in face heavy ground fire, hit their targets and return to base safely.
If it's one thing the A-10 does not fear, it's AAA.
The "Bathtub" can take a 23mm HE AA shell, and keep on flying. Now this is not the entire aircraft, but it is indicative of what the plane was deigned for.
Please, tell this things to someone else :)
You think that A-10 is an "abrams" tank with wings - but it's not true. As any AC it's vulnerable to AAA.
Iraqi Shilkas can fire not only HE shells. AP 23mm can penetrate the "bathtub" with ease. Even if it doesn't, the stream of lead from 4 barrels making 4800 RPM can shred the whole airframe, and in such case - who cares about the "bathtub". More to say, organized rifle and LMG fire will be dangerous too. Not speaking about 14.5mm Vladimirovs, designed to kill light tanks. Add a chance to catch a Strela/Igla with a "bar" warhead that will simply cut off the wings, again. leaving the "bathtub" intact.
American pilots may be brave, but they are no kamikaze.
-
You print newspapers? As in newspapers that you distribute to other people - for them to read? WOW!!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Please, tell this things to someone else :)
You think that A-10 is an "abrams" tank with wings - but it's not true. As any AC it's vulnerable to AAA.
Iraqi Shilkas can fire not only HE shells. AP 23mm can penetrate the "bathtub" with ease. Even if it doesn't, the stream of lead from 4 barrels making 4800 RPM can shred the whole airframe, and in such case - who cares about the "bathtub". More to say, organized rifle and LMG fire will be dangerous too. Not speaking about 14.5mm Vladimirovs, designed to kill light tanks. Add a chance to catch a Strela/Igla with a "bar" warhead that will simply cut off the wings, again. leaving the "bathtub" intact.
American pilots may be brave, but they are no kamikaze.
you're right. The A10 is trash, that's why we've lost so many of them during this conflict.
-
Here another article on air defense from "Military Parade" a delightful Russian publication. I find it interesting that they called the Gulf war, where 75 Coalition planes were shot down, a failure of air defense, and Kosovo, where 1 plane was shot down, a success. But I love that magazine.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You print newspapers? As in newspapers that you distribute to other people - for them to read? WOW!!
You do not understand a difference between publishing house, edition and printing house? LOL
-
Originally posted by --am--
You do not understand a difference between publishing house, edition and printing house? LOL
I think it's your english he doesn't understand.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
So Boroda how long does it take to dismantle a Soviet built Air Defense setup? My guess based on the similar setups within US Air Defense capability is that it takes about 5 minutes to clear the area once you set up. Now a HARM travels pretty quickly on its way to a stored location from the radar signal. I seriously doubt they can get out that fast.
Reschke, in Vietnam and Egypt S-75s were used even without observation radars. Only one-two launchers, diesel and control cabin. Manual targeting worked well. Usually they ran away after every launch.
In Vietnam they even used S-75 launchers as bait for CGS planes, one launcher that is aimed at the blue sky, launch, here come F-105s at low alt that are blown to pieces by 4 Shilkas around the launcher.
I don't know about short-range SAMs, I was trained for S-200 stationary complex. Our deployment time was an optimistic 14 hours, with all fortification and hangars. But things like S-125 can fire right "from the wheels".
SAM tactics is something between gamble, art and science.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Here another article on air defense from "Military Parade" a delightful Russian publication. I find it interesting that they called the Gulf war, where 75 Coalition planes were shot down, a failure of air defense, and Kosovo, where 1 plane was shot down, a success. But I love that magazine.
-Sik
Military Parade is a Military-Industrial Complex advertisement magazine. Their art director is a friend of mine :) It's a beautiful artistic "glossy-paper" magazine, a "Vogue" of military publishing.
-
The very thought of you anywhere near a newspaper makes me feel very bad for anone who would even chance to read it...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Please, tell this things to someone else :)
You think that A-10 is an "abrams" tank with wings - but it's not true. As any AC it's vulnerable to AAA.
Iraqi Shilkas can fire not only HE shells. AP 23mm can penetrate the "bathtub" with ease. Even if it doesn't, the stream of lead from 4 barrels making 4800 RPM can shred the whole airframe, and in such case - who cares about the "bathtub". More to say, organized rifle and LMG fire will be dangerous too. Not speaking about 14.5mm Vladimirovs, designed to kill light tanks. Add a chance to catch a Strela/Igla with a "bar" warhead that will simply cut off the wings, again. leaving the "bathtub" intact.
American pilots may be brave, but they are no kamikaze.
Tell me then,
IN the first gulf war, where all these Weapons supplied by the Former Soviet Union were deployed, why is it out of 8,755 A-10 sorties, only one was lost to AAA fire?
Meanwhile, they are credited with destroying 987 tanks, 926 artillery pieces, 501 APCs, and a host of other targets.
If the aircraft is so vulnerable, why was only one lost to AAA fire?
The aircraft should be an easy taret considering it's low speed, and low altitude. Why only 1 kill?
Did you not train the Iraqi's well enough in the use of the Advanced Soviet equiptment?
-
muckmaw: IN the first gulf war, where all these Weapons supplied by the Former Soviet Union were deployed, why is it out of 8,755 A-10 sorties, only one was lost to AAA fire?
Because Iraqis started retreating two days before the strike and did not even intend to put up any fight while US strafed defensless columns?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
muckmaw: IN the first gulf war, where all these Weapons supplied by the Former Soviet Union were deployed, why is it out of 8,755 A-10 sorties, only one was lost to AAA fire?
Because Iraqis started retreating two days before the strike and did not even intend to put up any fight while US strafed defensless columns?
miko
Oh, I'm sorry. I did not realize Tanks were defensless...
But being Russian built, I guess your right.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
muckmaw: IN the first gulf war, where all these Weapons supplied by the Former Soviet Union were deployed, why is it out of 8,755 A-10 sorties, only one was lost to AAA fire?
Because Iraqis started retreating two days before the strike and did not even intend to put up any fight while US strafed defensless columns?
miko
Also because they have experience now, including some lessons from Serbian PVO.
And definetly because in case of heavy AAA fire they better call artillery support instead of engaging. It's not covardice, it's just how the things should be done.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Oh, I'm sorry. I did not realize Tanks were defensless...
But being Russian built, I guess your right.
AFAIK Miko is a T-72 tank commander.
Miko, can you tell us some things about T-72s? I know you didn't serve in the desert, but what are your estimations about reliability, agility and targeting systems efficiency?
As a person who studied to be a weapon engineer I can say that Abrams is defintly vulnerable to D-81 cannon (we used "civilian" names, not the Army 2A-something). And equipped with dynamic protection - it can take several hits from any weapon w/o serious damage.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Because Iraqis started retreating two days before the strike and did not even intend to put up any fight while US strafed defensless columns?
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65824&perpage=50
Here's a Highway of death thread... in case we want to go down that road (haha!) again :)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Boroda
AFAIK Miko is a T-72 tank commander.
Miko, can you tell us some things about T-72s? I know you didn't serve in the desert, but what are your estimations about reliability, agility and targeting systems efficiency?
As a person who studied to be a weapon engineer I can say that Abrams is defintly vulnerable to D-81 cannon (we used "civilian" names, not the Army 2A-something). And equipped with dynamic protection - it can take several hits from any weapon w/o serious damage.
What kind of Air Defence weaponry does the T-72 have?
Was the T-80 deployed in Iraq during the first gulf war?
Also, are these tank columns generally escorted by AAA (ZSU-23's Etc) and SAMs?
-
My speciality was gunner, actually - I got "promoted" to commander and even run a platoon for a while (3 tanks) but shooting was my forte.
At about 15-20 miles an hour I would hit a target withing 30 degree arc at 1200 meters within 5-7 seconds and then put another two rounds as fast as the mechanism reloaded - 6-8 seconds - all within 1 feet raduis around the point of aim - with HE rounds we practiced with, not sub-caliber penetrators that treavel twice as fast and are easier to aim - not being as critical to range and lead estimation due to much flatter trajectory. And they arrive a second sooner, which may be crucial if he is already pulling the trigger! Those penetrators were rarely used for practice - and never at garrisone ragnes, due to flying way further throughg the target and probably crap inside them - depleted uranium maybe, I have no way to know.
With those penetrators in real combat I'd probably shave off 5 or so seconds of making a laser distance measurement by setting the sight to 800 meters and compensating by eye via shifting a point of aim.
The power of such a round shot from 125 mm smooth bore cannon (with additional powder charge compared to the HE one) is enormous, but exact penetration in particular kind of armor - who knows...
Of course I ws the only one in the regiment capable of such feat - having few friends (I was the only one college-kid) there and many enemies, so little to do but practive while others slacked off. Plus I've alsways loved mechanical stuff, especially those that go "boom" - my Ukrainian home-made guns, bazookas and rocket launchers were quite impressisve.
Also, I made sure that my tank's stabiliser was not drifting, the cannon properly balanced, the circle of a laser rangefinder in the sight was close to the aiming carret to avoid extra adjustment, the night sight not burned out and the loading/ejection mechanism was working properly - all that having nothing better to do and needing a reason to get out of barracks where I had ongoing "vendettas" with azerbaijan, usbek and western-ukrainian "mafias" going all at once. :)
So on any shoots with top brass present I was shooting non-stop while making impression that the crew changed all the time - we all dressed same and 90% of our training and shooting was at night.
I was also given extra tracer-less MG and main cannon insert ammo (we often used 14.7 insert barrel to simulate the cannon fire) to cross-shoot other's targets.
The T-72 and it's derivatives (80,90) was lighter tank than western ones - mostly by being 2 feet smaller and presenting much less of a target. The cannod does not depress nearly as low - which makes it harder to shoot down from the pop-up position behind the ridge. But those tanks were not desined with stationary defence in mind but for overrunning Europe and shooting on the go, up at the defenders, not down at the attackers.
Basically, the technology was as close to the ideal, that within the affective range of a cannon it was up to the quality of the crew - mostly detecting the target and making the first shot a fraction of a second earlier.
Also, on real life tank maneuvres - and combat not involving tanks - there is usually so much crap and dust in the air that two-mile engagement ranges narrow down to "what the heck is that!? Stop, stop! - Blamm!".
In reality the quality of serf-drafted, not selected in any way according to technical-savyness soviet crews were atrocious.
If faced with western tanks in anything near matching numbers, I would have jumped out of a tank (remenbering to ignite the ammo load as an excuse) and switched to infantry... Especially if such battle happened during the day, since, I am practically colorblind in the green-gray spectrum which is not a good survival trait for a gunner in real combat, success in practice nonwithstanding. :)
I can only guess about the quality and motivation of the Iraqi crews and the extent of their training. If you have a guy with a
miko
-
Miko-
What about Air Defenses traveling in your tank convoy?
Did the T-72, 80, and 90 have any built in Anti Aircraft guns?
Were there any t-80s or t-90s in Iraq during the first gulf war?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
blah blah blah
Just kidding. Miko, that was a great post. Very interesting reading.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Their art director is a friend of mine :)
Send my congratulations to your friend! Its a very attractive magazine :)
-Sik
-
muckmaw: Miko-
What about Air Defenses traveling in your tank convoy?
Did the T-72, 80, and 90 have any built in Anti Aircraft guns?
You expect the soviet army tought those things to its grunts? :)
I do know that each regiment of (3 tanks x 3 platoons + 1) x 3 companies + 1 = 31 tanks was assigned as mobile air cover a few (four?) of those armored vehicle thingies with four AA rockets - two on each side of the turret and (two?) Shilkas - which could allegedely shoot an artillery shell out of the air without operator intervention.
We had .50 cal machineguns mounted on top but hitting anything with them was practically impossible.
Were there any t-80s or t-90s in Iraq during the first gulf war?
Most likely not. Even in the mid-80s when I served, the only T-72s exported were those 4-crew - an extra grunt instead of the autoloading device and with (mostly?) older optical parallax rangefinders rather than the laser ones.
Soviets had many - tens of thousands, of older T54 and T55 and advanced but unreliable T64 tanks in conservation and did not like to sell modern stuff. For backward countries against backward countries old stuff performed exellently, but to allow the modern stuff to be used by "savages" against a western admy - and get blown up despite quality - would just undeservedly discredit the quality of soviet-made military stuff.
Do you remember what Israeli's did with the obsolete disparate crap they had to the Syrians and Egyptians with fairly modern russian hardware?
Russians were mad as hell for such an inept misuse.
miko
-
A four man T72 without autolader? Do you have any more detail on this?
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Here's another article on air defense from "Military Parade" a delightful Russian publication. I find it interesting that they called the Gulf war, where 75 Coalition planes were shot down, a failure of air defense, and Kosovo, where 1 plane was shot down, a success. But I love that magazine.
-Sik
lol, I forgot to include the link
http://www.milparade.com/1999/34/042.htm
-Sik
-
Oh, yeah - the tanks - all of them except T64 that tended to overheat - were quite reliable - or would have been with decent crews and service. They were certainly kept clean and painted excuisitely, then rubbed with disel till they shined! :)
The engine could eat a lot of dust wearing the rings in the process - but still run, just consuming more fuel and using oil by the bucket - well, maybe and having trouble at the top gear which was exessive anyway, only useable on the road but being to fast too control the vehicle -EDIT: the tank was actually too light and generated too low pressure to be stable on hard pavement, it would spin off like on ice. We had a guy having his whole leg run over on soft sand - he basically got most of the muscle torn off but the bones were intact!
When I served, there was no active defence yet (reactive armor) but we heard of it just introduced in "show off" divisions (Taman' division?).
Supposeley western night sights were better, not requiring an illuminator - or requiring it less, since I used one without illuminator with some success (huge lamp disclosing one's location for miles) and often the daytime sight - I do not know how it is now.
Everytime a tank would go to capital rebuild (engine resource 500 hours), it would come back with all new stuffing, including sights of the latest model.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[Most likely not. Even in the mid-80s when I served, the only T-72s exported were those 4-crew - an extra grunt instead of the autoloading device and with (mostly?) older optical parallax rangefinders rather than the laser ones.
Miko, I'm intrigued. From what I saw I thought there is no place for another crew member in a T-72... Even if you remove the autoloader :eek:
Never thought about it...
-
GRUNHERZ: A four man T72 without autolader? Do you have any more detail on this?
That was what we - common soviet tanker grunts who have not seen a foreigner in their lifes - believed. Some stuff was blabbed by officers - some with Mid-East experience or hairsay of officers who knew of such officers. Certainly not in the magazines we read.
In reality? I don't know and did not think to check the western sources since. May be a myth.
Autoloaders wer tricky things to entrust the "blacks" - they reqired some maintenence tuning abd gentle handling - preferably no touching - but instead were often used by crew as a ladder upon entering or exiting the tank. The frequent result was a 5-kilo bottom of the charge (the projectile was separate from the charge and the charge made like a shotgun shell, the carton part burning off in the process and steel bottom remaining to be ejected) - that bottom bouncing off the edge of the briefly-opened hatch and hitting someone's head ot falling into the mechanism. It was usually launched 3-5 feet up and about 20-30 feet out of the tank - which made it unhealthy for infantry to follow one - so the force was considerable to worry about, rubber helmets nonwithstanding...
miko
-
Boroda: Miko, I'm intrigued. From what I saw I thought there is no place for another crew member in a T-72... Even if you remove the autoloader :eek:
Never thought about it...
Apparently the gunner was seated lower, not having the ready ammo drum underneath, about 2 feet - and the commander was moved to the left side, to sit atop of the gunner - like in the older tanks. That left the right side of the battle compartment for the loader to move in and the ammo storage.
Again, that is a hearsay.
miko
-
I love this headline from the English language Pravda site: http://english.pravda.ru/
Foreign Investors Forget about Russia
Western experts believe that Russia is still retarded
What was that Mark Twain said about difference between great expression and bad expression being the difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug"?
-
Just read from between the lines...
A10 sees unidentified convoy -> calls in artillery strike.
Isn't the procedure in such situation to report about it to HQ for further instructions in the case it is indeed a friendly convoy.
and approvement for artillery strike is obtained through HQ...
Anyway, I can't buy all these stuffs these russian 'reporters of the truth' are spouting.
and then again western news stations, which I follow, doesn't tell everything, when their policy isn't to tell possible rumours.
(and no, i dont follow US news networks :>)
BBC for example has seemed to be pretty good.
At times, between the lines you can see certain level of critique on US, like what are the real intentions.
-
(http://www.foxnews.com/projects/photo_essay2/iraq_war_day9/photos/2.jpg)
Yep, we're losing...........
C.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
I love this headline from the English language Pravda site: http://english.pravda.ru/
Foreign Investors Forget about Russia
Western experts believe that Russia is still retarded
What was that Mark Twain said about difference between great expression and bad expression being the difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug"?
LMAO
There is also a headline on there about "Life Without Brain". I guess that would be a common problem for their target audience.
-
Miko..i love reading first hand experince with military equipment..Thank You..
Please feel free to write doen all your tank experience..
missfires-thrown tracks..shootin sht, - engines- trannies.. and of course..blowing more stuff up!
salute
BiGB
-
BGBMAW: Miko..i love reading first hand experince with military equipment..Thank You..
Please feel free to write doen all your tank experience..
missfires-thrown tracks..shootin sht, - engines- trannies.. and of course..blowing more stuff up!
:) Here is one.
There was one time on maneuvers when we had for the first time to use the integral digging plow (flat plate hinged on the lower part of the front ">" - not to confuse with anti-mine plows that were optional equipment installed in front of each track) to dig a tank entrenchment of the correct profile in sandy clay soil - with two ramps, etc. That plow is usually held by bolts to the body and drops and digs in going forward but lifts and drags going in reverse. It is obviously narrower than a tank, being between tracks.
My crew consisted only of myself and my mechanic - the commander being detached to the political officer producing a "wall newspaper" about our achievements and readiness, I believe - having some artistic talent with a brush he was always doing this kind of propaganda crap leaving us to pull the sling, bastard...
After a few frustrating hours we just gave up with finesse, dug a huge triangular hole with two mounds at its ends and ten filled it back in from those mounds to the right profile with shovels - even evened it with a wooden plank to be precise withing a half inch. Took us all night but we beat the other full crews by quite a while figuring the right way to do it while they still f#$ked with the damn plows.
By that time of an early morning we have not slept for about a week and before that two hours a day average for months - the norm in our "skeleton" regiment with just the tank crews - no attached infantry whatsoever (to be filled by reservists in need) but lots of training, maintenance, guard duty and "spit and polish" to fill the time.
Not ten minutes passed since the boss approved our tank - feeshly cleaned, dusted and of course rubbed with diesel - making it shine for a moment but attract dust like a magnet in a short while - and sitting cousily in the great beautifull trench - all 219 centimeters of it with even top of the turret below the ground level but ready to pop-up on inclined ramp front or back and shoot someone, less than a feet gap on each side - and we had a few minutes to catch a nap before other crews were done and the company was ordered to do some camp-setting work elsewhere...
Anyway, not ten minutes passed when a blind f#$ker that got lost on a march previous evening - no doubt all crew having fallen asleep while in the column and missing a turn - comes in on the way to his assigned spot in the line and drives his tank perpendicularly right across our engine compartment - nearly killing my mechanic (driver), totally crumbling our beautifull entrenchment and burying our tank and most terribly - shifting it sideways into stone-hard clay bank of the trench and somehow throwing off both of our tracks in the process. Probably because of the relatively softer bottom which was fill rather than hard clay. Since we could neither drive nor possibly pull it out without doing damage to it - eved if the towing cables held and there was enough power in the whole company of tanks and mechanics knew how to tow properly - which is no simple trick - we spent almost two days day digging it out and extending a 2.5 meter deep hole around it with a shovel and a pickax so that we could clear the area and work on the tracks.
Remind me in a few days and I may post another story.
miko
-
lol miko...Thx..i will..
I like you ..great stuff...
Salute
Have a good weekend.
BiGB
xoxo
-
Originally posted by blur
I don’t know if this has already been brought up but I’ve been reading these Russian intelligence dispatches for the past several days and I find them quite interesting.
http://162.42.211.226/article2438.htm
This doesn't surprise me a bit. Perhaps you can take a trip over to the land of freedom and journalistic veracity. Don't let the door out of the U. S. hit you in the prettythang.
-
Good reading.
-
So's Clancy .. only more realistic. ;)