If US or anyone fights Iran, the Russian new weapons will become battle tested

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
To bad even if Putin pushes the button most of them (if not all) wouldn't get 10 ft of the ground.

US Nuclear Primacy




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
One thing I'd like to make clear to all. The USSR and Russia are not as dumb as the U.S. and Europe in one respect, which is that they are smart enough to not sell the best or the original versions of their combat systems. This is the main reason why Russian-made stuff is so cheap; they basically sell rip-off versions of thie equipment, such as MiG-29s, instead selling them in bulk while the individual systems are qualitatively inferior to the originals the USSR and Russia fielded themselves. This is very obvious as there are EXPORT-designated variants of things like the MiG-29.

Given that, the Persian Gulf War is not the best example of Soviet and Russian equipment in action. Their best tank, the T-72, was also an inferior export version of the superior original version. They also used tank shells that were Iraq-made and these were very bad, thus resulting in the U.S. tanks routing Iraq's armored forces. Kosovo was a bad example, to whoever mentioned it. The opposing force was an incredible mismatch when compared to the NATO forces. Almost no comparison, not to mention Operation Allied Force was a U.S./NATO failure. It said more about our own military than it did about the OPFOR.

Also, I'll just say that you can have an American-style military force, but if you don't know how to fight, you will be annihilated. Was Iraq overrated in 1990? Yes and no. Soldiers on the ground will tell you openly that the Iraqi military did live up to its billing as a fierce fighting force, but putting up a fight means nothing if you cannot coordinate and you have poor command and control. Iraq simply did not know how to fight.

I'm going to get trashed for saying this, but MILITARILY, Desert Storm was the U.S. military's finest hour. I guarantee that you will never see a better military force in terms of combat power, skill, training, and pure warfighting. Yes, we had superior firepower and technology, but we also had superior training as well. From the moment our soldiers stepped into Saudi Arabia, they were ready to fight, no matter what the end result was. The incredible VII Corps of 1991 could easily take out the entire U.S. Army of 2006.

To be a bit more relevant to the topic, the only way to truly test Russia's military equipment is for Russia to fight a war themselves.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Yeah its true that training is without a doubt as important as technology in most cases and in many cases more important than technology.

And your right in regards to what Russia sells to other countries. In the Gulf War Iraqi T-72's didn't even have night vision thermal or otherwise. Which goes to further my original post. Everybody says Russian has sold Iran top notch kit but more than likely its a fairly watered down version.

The US has gotten hosed badly by sending out our top notch stuff just to fall into the wrong hands. Israeli F-16's to China and however inadvertently Taiwanese Aim-9 Sidewinders to China then to the Soviet Union.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Did you know that the military equipment that is sold from a producer country to the consumer, is usually altered in such a way that it's efficiency is decreased by a few dozen percent? (this includes tanks, aircraft and other machines. I think they just wire the stuff in such a way that you can't make it more efficient even if you knew how)

So whatever Russia sells to other countries will ALWAYS be less efficient than the product that is used in Russia itself.
The same goes for America and other countries.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alex Dude
So whatever Russia sells to other countries will ALWAYS be less efficient than the product that is used in Russia itself.
The same goes for America and other countries.


With Russia, 110% yes. America, no. The U.S. always sells the complete product, sometimes even superior versions. The F-15K Slam Eagle is currently the best version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, yet its used only by the Republic of Korea Air Force. Then there was the famous sale of the F-14A Persian Cat. Some say the product was sabotaged in some way, but there is no evidence saying so and its incredible combat performance also says otherwise.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by Alex Dude
So whatever Russia sells to other countries will ALWAYS be less efficient than the product that is used in Russia itself.
The same goes for America and other countries.


With Russia, 110% yes. America, no. The U.S. always sells the complete product, sometimes even superior versions. The F-15K Slam Eagle is currently the best version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, yet its used only by the Republic of Korea Air Force. Then there was the famous sale of the F-14A Persian Cat. Some say the product was sabotaged in some way, but there is no evidence saying so and its incredible combat performance also says otherwise.


Well not true, the F-15 can be considerd an obsolete airframe. The Russians sell better versions of the MIG-29 to client countries than what they use such as the MIG-29 SMK. You don't see the Southe Koreans being sold the F-22 do you. Also the F-15I is the better version of the F-15.
Also, you are tlaing about the F-14's to Iran, what incredible combat performance sis they have ? I'm all ears.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
All the Sovs ever did was sell its last generation hardware to its satellites. They got the old MiG 15s when the MiG 21 was new and so on. The MiG 25 that Viktor Belenko delivered to us was front line, cutting edge Sov-tech that was totally underwhelming. Apart from a few innovative applications and old-fashioned tech taken a bit farther than thought possible the plane was a paper tiger. US manufacturers had abandoned most all of the technology found on the MiG 25 long ago. This goes for every other weapon system they had.

Know how our last-generation equipment and hardware goes to the National Guard and Naval Resreve? That's about how far behind the curve the Sovs were versus the US all the time, but we didn't know it or believe it.

They like us would not equip a vehicle with the latest technology for sale to another nation. As example a less sophticated radar or fire control system might replace the one in the US version. But over all the performance of things like the MiG 29 or F-16 is same same. The export model doesn't have a wider turning circle or less responsive throttle. The export T-72s had the same engine as the home model etc.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
To bad even if Putin pushes the button most of them (if not all) wouldn't get 10 ft of the ground.

US Nuclear Primacy



Well that article is not really dealing with reality as far as i can tell and i would be very interested to know why you believe that the USSR are deploying NEW mobile ICBMs but had no money to service the older one's. Should we not be more suspicious of the US arsenal where the newest ICBMs were actually taken out of service? I think the destruction of the 'Peacekeepers' is quite revealing as to the general intent of the American government.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well that article is not really dealing with reality as far as i can tell


Gee Stellar I didn't know you were so far up in the Kremlin
I mean what information are you privy too.


Originally posted by StellarX
and i would be very interested to know why you believe that the USSR are deploying NEW mobile ICBMs but had no money to service the older one's.


Well the USSR isn't because it doesn't exist anymore. If you mean Russia then the article states that over 80% of Russia's ICBMs are past their fire by date. And it would have probably been more costly to refit them rather than to develop new systems. After all Russia's new found economic prosperity has only happened in what the last 2-3yrs. Russia's financial position meant she had to neglected her weapons systems for over 10yrs leaving them pretty much useless.


Originally posted by StellarX
Should we not be more suspicious of the US arsenal where the newest ICBMs were actually taken out of service? I think the destruction of the 'Peacekeepers' is quite revealing as to the general intent of the American government.


Not nearly as much as we should be suspicious of Russia's. The US has been constantly upgrading and testing its weapons capability.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
All the Sovs ever did was sell its last generation hardware to its satellites. They got the old MiG 15s when the MiG 21 was new and so on.


Not always the case and as far as i know cash and strategic importance of the conflict played a important part as to what weapons would be available for purchase...


The MiG 25 that Viktor Belenko delivered to us was front line, cutting edge Sov-tech that was totally underwhelming.


Underwhelming if compared to the design CHOICES made by the Russians at the time. The Russians could have done the whole solid state electronic thing but how many planes could they have built and at what cost to the country? If something is not efficient in a strategic military sense why consider it?


Apart from a few innovative applications and old-fashioned tech taken a bit farther than thought possible the plane was a paper tiger.


It would have been able to fight in a EMP environment and it's powerful radar could burn trough ECM operated at the time. It could be repaired even in remote areas and little infrastructure as would have been the likely situations after a nuclear exchange. I would LOVE to see how you think 1100 odd high performance planes that could outrun anything that could fight back are 'paper tigers'. Even when operated by Iraqi' pilots they managed to fly circle's around American pilots and missiles on at least a few occasions.


US manufacturers had abandoned most all of the technology found on the MiG 25 long ago. This goes for every other weapon system they had.


The US abandoned plenty of perfectly good weapon systems during the cold war many of which would have helped no end in warding off the massive strategic imbalances during the late 70's and 80's.


Know how our last-generation equipment and hardware goes to the National Guard and Naval Resreve? That's about how far behind the curve the Sovs were versus the US all the time, but we didn't know it or believe it.


The difference being that what you place in your national guard can not reach the battlefront but everything in a Russian warehouse can and probably will. I have a hard time understanding how people have come to the belief that the US have always operated generally superior weapons to the USSR during the cold war. If we look at most fields that just does not some readily obvious with the differences largely being due to doctrine imo. I guess it can be argued that one adapts to what you can produce to fight with but is this really true for a country with the resources of the USSR? What equipment( tanks,planes,artillery,helicopters,IFV's,APC's, anti tank,Sams') operated by the USA were generally so superior that they could individually or as class have resulted in a victory for NATO after the early 1970's?

Does it matter when your individual weapons systems are superior but will each be up against a handful of marginally ( or lets say generally) inferior systems? Having generally superior weapons systems ( and that can be debated no end but lets try make it simple) did not in the end result in victory for the Germans in either the first or second world wars or for the USA in Korea and Vietnam. I am not convinced that investing in cheaper rugged, but fully integrated, systems are not the wiser choice.


They like us would not equip a vehicle with the latest technology for sale to another nation. As example a less sophticated radar or fire control system might replace the one in the US version.


Well it depends entirely on how prized that technology is and since the west generally had the same or higher technological capacity the USSR would sell what best suited it's strategic interest. I would say the US were generally quite lax in selling high technology products to nations that might very well be enemies in the future but it probably mattered little as the CIA leaked whatever served it's interest anyways.


But over all the performance of things like the MiG 29 or F-16 is same same. The export model doesn't have a wider turning circle or less responsive throttle. The export T-72s had the same engine as the home model etc.


The quality of armor and construction on airplanes and tanks can very very wildly and more than one nation ( buying weapons to fight western powers) complained that they were being sold 'junk' that was either obsolete or not of good quality. The west might want to call what Iraq operated T-72's but it's about as accurate as the "Iraq has WOMD claim" imo.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

The MiG 25 that Viktor Belenko delivered to us was front line, cutting edge Sov-tech that was totally underwhelming.


Underwhelming if compared to the design CHOICES made by the Russians at the time. The Russians could have done the whole solid state electronic thing but how many planes could they have built and at what cost to the country? If something is not efficient in a strategic military sense why consider it?


Erm they could of, since when. The Russians didn't possess solid state electronics back then, let alone be able to equip a fighter with with them.



Apart from a few innovative applications and old-fashioned tech taken a bit farther than thought possible the plane was a paper tiger.


It would have been able to fight in a EMP environment and it's powerful radar could burn trough ECM operated at the time. It could be repaired even in remote areas and little infrastructure as would have been the likely situations after a nuclear exchange. I would LOVE to see how you think 1100 odd high performance planes that could outrun anything that could fight back are 'paper tigers'. Even when operated by Iraqi' pilots they managed to fly circle's around American pilots and missiles on at least a few occasions.


LOL once again a complete misunderstanding. For a start the MIG-25's radar had an extremely narrow search radius and was completely useless without a ground radar station directing it. Also if it's engine were run anywhere near maximum power they required an extensive overhaul after landing, which incidentally requires alot of infrastructure

I would like to see at least a little back up that these MIG-25's flew rings around the US in the Gulf War " at last on a few occassions " ( which is a contradictoey statement n itself ).



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm they could of, since when. The Russians didn't possess solid state electronics back then, let alone be able to equip a fighter with with them.

And they still do not.
Been to Russia lately?
I took a trip there early this year for an academic convention and found, to my disbelief, that most computers are bought outside of Russia. Why? Because they still lack the solid state electronics capabilities and know-how to build--on a large enough scale--per houshold-- to sell their own indigenous computers.
Check this babies out:

www.homecomputer.de...

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Gee Stellar I didn't know you were so far up in the Kremlin
I mean what information are you privy too.


Well you can ask the western defense establishment authors if this is all true as i am simply adding up all the indvidual facts that they mention. It's as much a question of research as math imo.



Well the USSR isn't because it doesn't exist anymore.


Sometimes it's hard to spot the difference so i just slip up and call it what it should be called. :0


If you mean Russia then the article states that over 80% of Russia's ICBMs are past their fire by date.


Did they check the serial numbers and even if that is so what is a 'fire by date'? A ICBM or plane is not a can of tinned food you know....


And it would have probably been more costly to refit them rather than to develop new systems.


Their doing both but many of SS-18's and SS-19's can still last well into the next decade if their properly looked after and that is always conservative estimates. The American government might write off the threat ( what's the failure rate on 20 or 30 year old ICMB;20, 30 or 40%?) as it looks and sounds cool but since they have bunkers to go hide in they can afford to believe the wrong statistics. How many millions of lives may be lost due to missiles working better than their supposedly supposed to?


After all Russia's new found economic prosperity has only happened in what the last 2-3yrs. Russia's financial position meant she had to neglected her weapons systems for over 10yrs leaving them pretty much useless.


Which is something you will believe when you do read only what the pentagon allows CNN to air....


Not nearly as much as we should be suspicious of Russia's. The US has been constantly upgrading and testing its weapons capability.


The American ICBM force are equipped with missiles that are far older than the average Russian one's and while this might be 'excused' by the fact that the USA is now largely reliant on their SLBM Trident ( which have been upgraded) it can not be compared to the throwing power, utility,survivability ( can be reloaded&repaired) of land based Russian systems such as the SS-25,24,19,18.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm they could of, since when. The Russians didn't possess solid state electronics back then, let alone be able to equip a fighter with with them.


Which is completely irrelevent as solid state electronics simply do not function in a nuclear war environment. The US military is designed to terrorize the third world while the USSR designed it's forces to win a global nuclear conflict. Do you think the USSR lacked the capacity to make the switch to solid state electronics had they wanted to do so? Did the Pentagon advise the US armed forces to use valves where possible in 1977 due to the fact that they so very resistent to nuclear effects?


LOL once again a complete misunderstanding. For a start the MIG-25's radar had an extremely narrow search radius and was completely useless without a ground radar station directing it.


It was not 'completely useless' by any stretch of the imagination and since it would be directed by ground control it hardly needed the best radar anyways. The Soviets did what they could with what they had and in a nuclear war environment American planes would have been dropping from the sky like stones making the perceived weakness of Russian planes largely irrelevent with no one left for them to fight.


Also if it's engine were run anywhere near maximum power they required an extensive overhaul after landing, which incidentally requires alot of infrastructure


The original engines were intended for a mach 2+ drone recon platform and they were adapted as best they could to the new plane. If one looks at the original specifications what they managed with the '25 is nothing less than extraordinary. They could be flown at Mach 2.5 and were redlined at 2.8' to prevent severe wear and tear which higher speeds would lead to.

Mig-25's over Iraq certainly managed higher speeds than American F-15's and if that is not a clear advantage i'm not sure what is.


I would like to see at least a little back up that these MIG-25's flew rings around the US in the Gulf War " at last on a few occassions " ( which is a contradictoey statement n itself ).


www.scramble.nl...

en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing contradictory in saying that the few times Foxbats met American's planes there were some upsets. The only air to air kill the Iraqi's managed was also due to one of these encounters....

Stellar



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm they could of, since when. The Russians didn't possess solid state electronics back then, let alone be able to equip a fighter with with them.


Which is completely irrelevent as solid state electronics simply do not function in a nuclear war environment. The US military is designed to terrorize the third world while the USSR designed it's forces to win a global nuclear conflict.


LMAO FFS, you're the one who made this grand statement that tehy could have outfited the MIG-25 with solid state electronics in teh 1970's, simple fact is they couldn't. I love your tactics when you are proven wrong , you love to say " oh it's irreevant "

As for your last stament about military comparisons, what complete bollocks.



LOL once again a complete misunderstanding. For a start the MIG-25's radar had an extremely narrow search radius and was completely useless without a ground radar station directing it.


It was not 'completely useless' by any stretch of the imagination and since it would be directed by ground control it hardly needed the best radar anyways. The Soviets did what they could with what they had and in a nuclear war environment American planes would have been dropping from the sky like stones making the perceived weakness of Russian planes largely irrelevent with no one left for them to fight.


LOL right, so somehow all the Soviet radars are immune from nuclear attack and from interferance. Come on, this is really getting laughable. As I said the MIG-25 is usless without ground control, n any nulcear war ( per your fanatsy ) these ground stations would be gone, wiped out. Therefore the MIG-25's if their airfield actually survived would be flying around basically blind. Completely useless.
And no LOL, US planes would no be dropping like flies ( IU ssume ) from EMP.
So your whole argument is the Soviets will win a nuclear war because they build crappy military equipment.



Also if it's engine were run anywhere near maximum power they required an extensive overhaul after landing, which incidentally requires alot of infrastructure


The original engines were intended for a mach 2+ drone recon platform and they were adapted as best they could to the new plane. If one looks at the original specifications what they managed with the '25 is nothing less than extraordinary. They could be flown at Mach 2.5 and were redlined at 2.8' to prevent severe wear and tear which higher speeds would lead to.


AS I said, they had short endurance and flying at maximum speed shelled their enines. Not to mention of course they had to go subsonic to launch ther maiiles. Their were unmanouverable and carried no internal gun. Only an ignoramus would be impressed by them.



Mig-25's over Iraq certainly managed higher speeds than American F-15's and if that is not a clear advantage i'm not sure what is.


LOL right, so where exactly did they fly rings around the US. How many planes did MIG-25's shoot down, and how many MIG-25's were sht down LOL.


Nothing contradictory in saying that the few times Foxbats met American's planes there were some upsets. The only air to air kill the Iraqi's managed was also due to one of these encounters....


Well gee that's definately flying rings around them LOL. nce again your grandiose statements are false.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
The Iranians are Persians in name by choice but they don't have a better system of training that USA by any stretch of the imagination.


How long does the US armed forces retain the average recruitt(EDIT: said conscript first time round) soldier and how long does a certain officer get to know his specific command or station?


Remember they were in a deadlock war for 8 years with Iraq and couldn't beat them and we went through Iraq like poop through a goose


Iraq had the support of the west which supplied them with satellite information and weaponry that Iran simple did not have access to. When you generally have a good idea of what the enemy will do next it's hard to lose when you do not have inferior forces.

You think nearly a decade of constant warfare, a massive air campaign against your ground forces, more than a decade of sanctions that kills 500 000 children and a enemy that has two decades to learn how and with what you fight increases your odds of winning? If America did not manage what it did against Iraq it would have been completely embarrassing and the fact that it's going as badly as we know it is seems to indicate that the Iraqi's still have fight left after all that.


Originally posted by Cruizer
"Fight like you train and train like you fight." That says it all for any of these tinhorn wanna-be countries with lots of toys they don't know how to play with.


Well there numerous examples ( Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan,Iraq) of people who do know how to fight given they do not have to come up against the overwhelming firepower the US can visit on those who makes their presence well known.


It's not the equipment and weapons, it's the soldier. And these guys ain't got it.


Soldiers fight as well as they are led and when they are badly commanded in peacetime they will fight as badly when the shooting starts.


All you have to do is look at Iraq and note that not one Allied aircraft was defeated when engaged by enemy pilots.


First gulf war there was at least one confirmed kill by Iraqi airplanes...


Every time Israel has been attacked it's been by superior arab forces in number and even equipment they have defeated them.


If you studied those wars you will realise how close the Israeli's came to defeat on numerous occasions. You do realise that Israel started many of those wars choosing advantageous conditions? All Israel managed was survival and it don't recall any of those countries being occupied by Israel after their 'defeats'.


The obvious conclusion is that arabs can't fight so they turn to blowing themselves up.


The obvious conclusion is that you don't really know what's going on and have not studied the actions of the original ( Zionist) suicide bombers. It says a great deal about the west when other nations are derided for lack of military prowess.....

Stellar



[edit on 7-10-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   



How long does the US armed forces retain the average conscript soldier and how long does a certain officer get to know his specific command or station?


The US doesn't conscript soldiers.


the fact that it's going as badly as we know it is seems to indicate that the Iraqi's still have fight left after all that.





Unfortunately Stellar, many people believe...like you, that it is the Iraqis who are fighting the US. When in reality, the US is in the middle of a war between Shiites, Sunnis, pro-Saddam people, pro-Iranian, etc. They are all clamouring for control of the government and Iraq itself. That is why you hear about all the Iraqi civilian deaths in Iraq by car bombs, shooting in mosques, civilian torture, etc.

I guarantee you, people getting taken off buses and being shot because they are Sunni is not the Iraqi people fighting for "independence" from the US.


But believe if you want it is the Iraqi people who have a fight left in them


But in reality, they want peace, and have NO fight left in them.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
The US doesn't conscript soldiers.


Very helpful as i really had NO IDEA. Thanks....


Unfortunately Stellar, many people believe...like you, that it is the Iraqis who are fighting the US. When in reality, the US is in the middle of a war between Shiites, Sunnis, pro-Saddam people, pro-Iranian, etc.


There is no credible evidence to suggest that the American forces in Iraq are fighting forces largely sponsored by the factions you suggest. To fight the way they do suggest these are the ex Iraqi republican guardsmen with good training and weapons. Don't buy into the nonsense that a Iraqi civil war will come about because they hate each other that much for if that was the case the SAS and American special forces would not need to plant bombs in both sides mosques to get them shooting at each other.


They are all clamouring for control of the government and Iraq itself.


As would happen in any country under the sun but that is not the reason for the violence in Iraq.


That is why you hear about all the Iraqi civilian deaths in Iraq by car bombs, shooting in mosques, civilian torture, etc.


The absolute massive majority of Iraqi's are dying due to American bombs and weapons and the lack of clean drinking water,sanitation, transportation, medical supplies and electricity. Stop blaming the victims for the crimes of the criminals.


I guarantee you, people getting taken off buses and being shot because they are Sunni is not the Iraqi people fighting for "independence" from the US.


Well if you can prove these incidents normally have anything to do with religion that would be great since i know that's mostly fantasy invented to blame the dead Iraqi's on other Iraqi's.


But believe if you want it is the Iraqi people who have a fight left in them


But in reality, they want peace, and have NO fight left in them.


And this type of fantastic delusion is why the USA have lost control over 90% of Iraq while Americans back home believe the war is won and 'all over'. Thousands of Americans are being wounded each month and yet you just have no idea...

Stellar



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
And promptly turned into scrap metal. Lets hope Iran recycles.
Sorry to be so blunt(oh that sounds good)but in GW1 and Kosovo everyone said America was going to get its ass kicked by incredibly sophisticated and wonderously cheap Russian weaponry. And it all turned out to be crap.


Well who said that and how well informed were they? I expected the US to sustain more casualties in the initial invasion of Iraq but it turns out the Iraqi defense plans were compromised by the Germans ( Don't remember how they got it) probably saving a good many American lives. With 'friends' like German intelligence who needs enemies...

The NATO air force ( American air force) was almost completely ineffective against Serbian ground forces and if you do not know that i can understand why you think what you do. Have you looked at what really happened or are you telling me what CNN said? Truth of the matter is NATO forces were largely ineffective even thought they were not even fighting modern Russian weaponry...

Stellar



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well who said that and how well informed were they? I expected the US to sustain more casualties in the initial invasion of Iraq but it turns out the Iraqi defense plans were compromised by the Germans ( Don't remember how they got it) probably saving a good many American lives. With 'friends' like German intelligence who needs enemies...


Why? Didn't you see how the Iraqi army performed in its first go around with the US Army? As far as the German agents could you provide a source detailing the intelligence they delivered to the US? I've know that a couple of German intelligence agents assisted the US in a number of ways during the march to Baghdad but as far as giving the US a look at the Iraqi playbook thats a new one.


Originally posted by StellarX
The NATO air force ( American air force) was almost completely ineffective against Serbian ground forces and if you do not know that i can understand why you think what you do. Have you looked at what really happened or are you telling me what CNN said? Truth of the matter is NATO forces were largely ineffective even thought they were not even fighting modern Russian weaponry...


Then why did they sue for peace? Did they just say "the hell with it Kosovo isn't worth it". Not likely from what I've read about its place in their history.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join