It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Only from my reading.
Well show me which bit is nonsense...
I’ll do this one more time, and from that point I’ll just stay away for the sake of keeping ATS forum clean and mature.
BT-7 tank was a waste of time. Panzers ate them for breakfast.
In one on one combat the BT-7 proved that it was the equal of the Panzer III, but Soviet tank units were often inexperienced unit commanders who were outmatched by their German counterparts. Poor crew training and lack of spare parts also worked against the BT-7 tank fleet, and by late 1941 many of the tanks were either destroyed or captured. In fact, the German army also made use of captured BT-7 tanks, but had to mark them so that they could avoid friendly fire incidents.
KV1s were used in such low numbers they were outmanouvred and overwhelmed before they could do anything. Not much of a (nasty) surprise, as you insinuate.
KV1s overwhelmed? LOL! I’ll save you and everybody the reading time, so just watch the moving pictures and LISTEN.
its flaws were quite serious. It was very slow and difficult to steer. The transmission was unreliable. The ergonomics were poor, with limited visibility and no turret basket. Its weight tended to strain smaller bridges.
MiG 1s and 3s were shot out of the sky in waves.
MiG-1/3 had the HIGHEST kill-to-loss ratio of ALL Soviet fighters through the ENTIREE WAR!
forced into a low altitude and even a ground-attack role, but it was quickly found to be inferior, and withdrawn from this role.
This fact is so obvious and well known that I’m not even going to bother with a source.
Again, you either have a biased agenda to slander Soviet/Russian topics or purposefully misinforming the ATS community. Knock it off.
The MiG 15 was faster and had a higher ceiling than Sabre, didn't do it much good.
Same thing. BASIC FACTS!!!!!! MiG-15 was NOT faster then F-86. Stop polluting this forum!!!!!
Sun Tzu, a professional warrior born from a warrior class. WORLD War II was not a war of the warrior classes, it was a WORLD WAR, and that includes civilians.
“Life of War” came from Leningrad and Stalingrad.
That means that there are no “military operations”, the life it self is turned into war in every aspect and that means pure SERVIVAL.
There was no “scorched earth” policy
but when it was necessary there were specific orders to take provisions from civilian population when Soviet Army was retreating, with authorized use of force.
Also, I doubt that you’d care, but my personal diligence recommend that you look into what “salting the earth” means, maybe then you’ll understand.
Really? Man, the Russian must literally be either the luckiest people in the world, or had some sort of a weather controlling ability since the times of the Golden Horde.
At this very moment I can’t even count how many times Russian victories are attributed entirely on luck vast lands and weather.
Talking such nonsense can only mean that in order to conquer Russia one has to be a good card player, have a really big gas tank and a double Doppler weather radar like the ones they have at TV stations.
I guess Hitler and the entire German army were just idiots with short memory and forgotten what happened with Napoleons army, or the Teutonic knight Crusade into Russia.
HowlrunnerIV, you might really have something there, Russian magical weather control powers is what allowed them to survive every single attempt to conquer their lands…
Oh ho, I should respect the commander who destroyed that first batallion? I don't think so.
What was his name and whos order was he forced to follow? Answer that one, know it all.
And my comment on Russian military history is dead on. Too often through Russian/Soviet history recon has been by bodycount.
I have an original and unpublished biography of a 19 year Soviet recon paratrooper that details his recon missions, behind enemy lines, under sniper/MG and mortar fire, in teams of two or even by him self, testing river beds and taking water levels, counting haystacks to identify and mark the ones that in actually are camouflaged MG/heavy gun positions, etc.
Where do you get you ideas from?
Even the great (and that is not sarcasm) Marshall Zhukov marched his men across minefields.
You ever bothered to find out why? Do so and then we’ll talk.
Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Tell me, should I also not comment on Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy out of respect for the grunts on the ground? I know them, too, and bashing Bush in no way disrespects them. Stupid argument to make.
See above and figure out what is the difference between necessary but horrible sacrifices, however barbaric they might appear to Western mentality, and then compare the need for survival to the basic good old greed driven war profiteering.
It’s not an argument; it’s a philosophy of life.
Good, because once again you've misunderstood my words. What has Prime Minister, General (ret), Yitzhak Rabin got to do with Akhmad Kadyrov, Ramzan Kadyrov or Alu Alkhanov?
Yitzhak Rabin retired General? Where have you been?
During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Rabin directed Israeli operations in Jerusalem and fought the Egyptian army in the Negev. In 1949, he helped draft an armistice agreement with the Arab countries that was signed on the island of Rhodes. In 1964 he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Under his command, the IDF achieved victory over Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six-Day War in 1967. After the Old City of Jerusalem was captured by the IDF
Yitzhak Rabin – an assassinated "martyr for peace".
What does it have to do with “Proxies”, Yasser Arafat, terrorism etc? That’s ok, I’ll slow down a bit so you can get back on your little tricycle and catch up, but I seriously doubt that you care to.
I do apologies for the sarcasm, but I don’t appreciate when my time is not valued.
I was (originally) talking about attacks on these people directly and indirectly through attacks on their administrations/forces. Those three names are the ones I was thinking about when I said "proxies". The situation in Chechnya in general was what I was referring to.
Chechnya, Sunny Muslims that practice Wahhabism and are to this day not recognized by any International Muslim community, are the proxies of which power?
I personally investigated their IED black market auction sites back in 1999, do you know where their financing was coming from to make the judgments that you’ve made?
So where was I wrong?
Where did I say that you were?
Sure, just like Chernobyl and repeated reactor stalling. No sir.
Chernobyl was an act of sabotage by a man who was deeply disturbed by the death of his daughter
Kursk “hosted guests” during a critical testing exercise. That’s the equivalent of bringing a tourist along on the first moon landing mission.
The main point with Kursk is that Putin was willing to risk his presidency by knowingly sacrificing the lives of the surviving crewman, in order to protect what ever secrets Kursk held.
Like other peoples, historically Russians have a history of committing willing and forced sacrifice in order to survive.
Back in WWII while...
Unfortunately Kursk was the unwilling but necessary sacrifice that had to be made, and even with great anger and sorrow Russians accept it, which is clearly reflected by Putins total approval rate of over 90%.
I don't need to travel to or live in Russia to know (and have proven) that you were wrong about Saddam and the Kurds
Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense
Q & A With CIA Analyst Stephen Pelletiere
Exposing the lies: Who killed the Kurds? Israel's part in a US invasion of Iraq.
Halabja: whom does the truth hurt?
you were less than informed about Yitzhak Rabin
you were off-topic about Saakashvilli and the media and you misunderstood the point about Iran.
I have never claimed any knowledge about Russia/USSR/CIS-Russia other than what I have read.
You have never provedme flat out wrong.
When I show (and explain) you where and why you are wrong or off-topic, you refuse to read.
When you give me a source I show how it can be interpreted to match my view or I admit that I have overstated the case (as I did with BT-7). However, at least 50% of what I said in that case (and with MiG 1/3 and MiG 15) was true.
While I will not accept Wiki as a source from my students, I do not quote it here where the info itself cannot be sourced. Therefore, I am quoting other sources through Wiki.
Therefore I do care about and am quoting factual sources.
See, this is the bit I love, you refuse to shine that same light on yourself. You quoted from an unpublished manuscript.
You quoted from the "life experience" of the Russian people and you have the gall to accuse me of not caring about provable facts.
We are going around in circles because you can not admit when you are wrong.
Such as your assertion that the US had something to do with encouraging the Kurds in Halabja to rise against Saddam in 1988.
You completely misunderstood my original reference and obviously didn't know anything about Halabja or Al-Anfil other than Saddam gassed Kurds. You managed to conflate the 1991 post-Desert Storm uprisings in the north and south with the Al Anfil campaign and Halabja attack of four years earlier.
You then, to top it all off, brought in Winston Churchill and the RAF.
To a discussion about Russian sales of uranium to the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmedenijad at exactly the same time US President George W Bush is attempting to build a consensus in the UN against Iran's nuclear programme.
And you accuse me of needing to check out fallacyfiles.
My line of reason is biased because I cherry pick? No, I am following the standard method of presenting an argument: State your assumptions/findings/analysis then state the facts that back it up. You pretty much failed to disprove those facts.
Again I suggest you look in the mirror, as you have no problem accusing me of being biased against the USSR, Russia and the Russian people while assuming that you are, of course, the voice of reason when refusing to admit the Russian leadership has ever got it wrong.
Even after your knowing or unkowing error is pointed out you refuse to admit error, therboy making your misinformation deliberate. ref Saddam, Kurds, American Air Support, Winston Churchill and RAF...
jarheadjock made a statement. I countered that statement by pointing to examples that had not caused international incidents. You then decided to talk about utterly unrelated topics in an attempt to counter my point.
When I made statements about the strength of the Russian armed forces I again asked questions whose answers supported my analysis. You chose to answer different questions or (rather ironically, given your race to get off-topic) question the validity of my questions and examples.
My question about Vladivostok was initially dismissed as me falling for propaganda and lies spread by western media for the purpose of making us feel more superior before you finally admitted the truth: that I was bang on the money.
But not before you'd managed to tell us all that you used to go there regularly. What was the point of that? It didn't make me any less correct, it just muddied the waters for a few extra posts.
My assertions about effectiveness of BT-7 tanks was proven by your own source.
My statement about speed of MiG 15 vs F-86 was incorrect in terms of outright top speed, but true in terms of rate of climb. What I didn't point out was that MiG 15 was better armed…
..yet had a hgher loss-to-kill ratio.
All that time spent with the Russian people and learning their history from them hasn't, in my opinion, done you much good if all it has done is to help you sympathise with the government against the people.
You claim I have no respect for the Russian people, yet you are less outraged at the waste of lives wrought by their leaders with no consequences for those leaders than I am. Again, rather ironic.
You chose to deflect my criticism of the leadership by claiming I showed the (now dead) troops no respect.
I dismissed this as the self-serving lie it is by showing that my questioning of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's leadership in no way disrespects the men and women women who choose to serve their country at the risk of their lives by putting on its uniform.
Your response? To dig your trench deeper by telling me you know some of the survivors. So what? I know men who went to New Guinea (now dead), Vietnam, the Falklands, Cambodia, Kuwait, Somalia, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That doesn't make the political leadership that led us into Iraq any less culpable for a) lying to us and b) underplanning the operation thereby c) putting us in the mess we're in now. The same leadership that has suffered no consequences for those actions or the mess of Abu Ghraib, which it was, in my opinion, directly responsible for.
I guess I'm just too attached to my western, democratic view whereby the leadership comes from the people and is responsible to the people for caring for the people.
See, I spend a great deal of time in an ex-communist country as well and I am less than impressed with the leadership or its demands that the people make sacrifices while they drive around in Lexuses or the fact that no-one is ever held accountable for #-ups that cost lives.
Anytime you want to begin that debate, let me know. I'm particularly interested in exactly how you intend to justify the total destruction of that much-mentioned first batallion into Grozny. They weren't defending Stalingrad from attack. They weren't Mustafa Kemal (Attaturk's) troops defending the Gallipoli peninsula. They were leading an expeditionary force with basically secure supply lines and they had the city under siege. Much like Berlin. So what justifies their sacrifice?
Originally posted by orangetom1999
While not directly on this topic...I wanted to mention that I have been using Google Earth quite a bit lately.
I investigated the island atoll of Diego Garcia. Very intresting what is at anchor in the atoll. Also what is visable on the air base and the antenna/satellite farms around the atoll.
While I was at it I began to search the coastline of India looking for fleet bases. I found a city called Mumbai. This appears to be a large commercial port and also in the mouth of the harbor is a Naval Facility. Lots of cruisers and submarines ported here. I counted 8 submarines and numerous cruisers and support ships..oilers and the like. Two carriers but If I read correctly one of them is a museum.
Also very much of intrest to me was the commercial facilitys. As I scanned the coast of India I noted may locations of Commercial shipping and the port facilitys to support the same. Containerized cargo and also in many places hauling coal or aggregate..mining type cargos. And of course all this means large fuel/oil terminals too.
Also of great intrest to me was the dockyards and shipbuilding facilitys in Mumbai. This area has what appears to be significant facilitys for working on ships. I noted what appeared to be two submarines sitting up on large barges or floating docks. Also noted was the number of drydocks and inclined shipways where ships can be winched out of the water and on to these inclines.
India has much larger and more extensive facilities than I had originally thought for ships.
I will ,in process of time, be doing the same for other nations in this area. This is going to be very intresting.
One thing which stood out unusually about Australia in the interior when just snooping on Google Earth was a small city called Alice Springs. What caught me so by surprise is that to the southwest of Alice springs is a set of obvious pistol and rifle ranges. They appear to be at distances of 25 yards out to 1000 yards. About five shooting ranges. Quite a set up for a nation which has clamped down very hard on private ownership of firearms. Sure wish we had a thousand yard range around here. I conclude it must be military or government. 500 to 1000 yard ranges are pretty rare in private hands..government has most of them. And I am talking here stateside. So what must it be like down under??