It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia vs Israel- Who would win?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Many misconceptions and outright lies in your post.

First of all there weren't that many russian pilots if any at all in Korea, yet you are making that war out to be as if it was against Russia, sorry it wasn't it was against a highly inferior trained North Korean force with inferior equipment.
You keep using examples of Israel or other countries fighting countries armed with outdated soviet equipment and you make it seem as if that's some sort of testament as to Russia's actual combat effectiveness. Sorry that argument holds no water.
You said Soviet Union got beat up and kicked out of Afghanistan. Sorry can you name your sources please? Because that's not quite accurate. Soviet Union suffered 15,000 losses while Afghans suffered 2,000,000+ Russia left when it chose to leave and on its way out won a big battle to 'end its occupation with a symbolic victory' as quoted in wikipedia. Don't believe me go read up on it again. It's nothing compared to the slaughter Americans suffered in vietnam with 60,000 dead, now THAT'S an ass kicking.
Lastly, your entire argument keeps anchoring on the fact that Israel will win when the U.S. saves them, this thread isn't about a 2 on 1 it clearly asks Israel vs Russia. If you want to include tag team why don't you say who will win Russia + China vs. U.S. vs Israel? In either case Russia would be the clear and easy victor.

p.s. your comments on WW2 are greatly misinformed as well. The eastern front had by far the most German forces and their most elite forces of the entire entire war. Secondly, not only did Germany launch a surprise attack so Russia wasn't prepared but it wasn't just Germany attacking they had other countries helping out the Finns, etc. And on top of that it's not like Russia had all of its forces initially at the eastern front in fact half of Russia's forces were on the EAST COAST of Russia, i.e. Vladisvostok because they were anticipating a Japanese attack from the rear. But when the famed Russian spy (considered the greatest spy of all time) who spied on Japan finally convinced Stalin with his reports that Japan was not going to attack UNTIL AFTER Germans captured Moscow, that's when Russia quickly began shipping hordes of elite Siberian troops from the east to help defend Moscow, Stalingrad etc.
No offense to you I'm sure you're just being patriotic, but it simply makes you look ignorant when you speak on historical events without knowing the actual facts.
One last case in point if you don't believe me: Coincidentally just today on military/history/discovery channel (I forget which one of those exactly) was the show top 10 greatest tanks of all time. #1 tank of all time was the Russian T-34 and multiple historians on the show said that the ingenius and revolutionary design of the tank led to the breaking of the German army's back because the tank was the only thing on earth that could stand up to and defeat the up to then unstoppable German Panthers and Tigers. And the historians noted it was the single biggest reason for the turn around of the entire war and that if it wasn't for the T-34 being produced Germany might have won the war and you would have been speaking German right now.




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
In 06/07 the cable channel "C-SPAN" showed nuke yest sites in Nevada and Arizona with 2 mile deep crater from a nuke test, so 300 megaton bombs would defenatly cause 1-200 MILE craters, and I don't believe mega-meteors ever crashed on the earth/moon I believe scientists are mistaken.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by wantawanta]

[edit on 4-10-2008 by wantawanta]

[edit on 4-10-2008 by wantawanta]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Isreal will win, it's a prophecy from Eziekiel 38. When God get's angry he will show his power.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


My friend, you were mistaken. There certainly were Russian pilots in Korea. Russia wanted to do two things. Reduce the lop-sides losses of their aircraft, and acquire data on the F-86 Sabre, and how the MIG's would do while comparing highly experienced pilots against highly experienced pilots. Your denial does not negate the facts. And I never suggested that the Korean War was American against Russian. You came up with that. But it did demonstrate American equipment against Russian equipment.

Since we have few examples of Russians against Americans, we must go to the second and third tiers, or client states to match Soviet military equipment and practice against American equipment and practice.

And yes, the Soviet Union got kicked out of Afghanistan. I do not consider Wickipedia a good, authoritative source. It's good for general information, not very good for definitive historical knowlege. We all know what happened in Afghanistan to the Soviets, so let's just admit the truth, supported by the facts, and move on.

Americans did suffer 60,000 dead from 1963-1975, and by 1972, Americans were slaughtering NVA every time they met. And not only Chinese, but Russians were there too. I sold the pistol I took off the Chinese major, but I still have the coin from the Russian I killed in the field on another occasion. Both were advisors.

I stand by my comments on the Russian military's behavior in the Second World War. The reason Russia may have been surprised was the deal they made with the devil to mutually attack and carve up Poland. Russian greed for Polish land by surprise attack was paid in full when Russia was in turn surprised. Fun, isn't it?

Now that you've brought up the Finns, let's look at that a bit closer. When Russia attacked the small country of Finland in late 1940, the vastly outnumbered Finns handed the Russians their own heads. In one area alone, the Finns, outnumbered 4:1 slaughtered Russians. Of the Russian force of one tank brigade and two divisions totaling 50,000 men, the smaller Finn force of 10,000 men killed 27,500 Russians, had 2,100 taken prisoner, and lost 43 tanks against 650 Finns killed. The Russian 44th Division was destroyed by only 300 Finns. And that was on the Russian border! Again, Russia attacked a smaller country and got a good asswhipping. You think they'd really do better against Israel, who isn't right there, handy to reach?

My ignorance, as you suggested, apparently isn't nearly as great as yours.

And your comment on the greatness of the T-34 tank. Yes. It was a great tank. Based on the American Christie design, which the Russians bought a couple of, and then went home to copy and modify. Like how they get a lot of their technology.

And no, the T-34 didn't win the Second World War. Americans and British were knocking out Tigers and Panzers without T-34's. Wonder how that happened?



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


My friend, you were mistaken. There certainly were Russian pilots in Korea. Russia wanted to do two things. Reduce the lop-sides losses of their aircraft, and acquire data on the F-86 Sabre, and how the MIG's would do while comparing highly experienced pilots against highly experienced pilots. Your denial does not negate the facts. And I never suggested that the Korean War was American against Russian. You came up with that. But it did demonstrate American equipment against Russian equipment.

Since we have few examples of Russians against Americans, we must go to the second and third tiers, or client states to match Soviet military equipment and practice against American equipment and practice.

And yes, the Soviet Union got kicked out of Afghanistan. I do not consider Wickipedia a good, authoritative source. It's good for general information, not very good for definitive historical knowlege. We all know what happened in Afghanistan to the Soviets, so let's just admit the truth, supported by the facts, and move on.

What drugs are you on the S.U. didn't get kicked out of Afghan, they left after they knew there was no point in slaughtering the people, if they lost thier bases would have been over ran with thousands capture, and we would have seen that, wikipedia is a good source as long as there are sources attacched at the bottom, if it's not then you can argue it's not a good source.



Americans did suffer 60,000 dead from 1963-1975, and by 1972, Americans were slaughtering NVA every time they met. And not only Chinese, but Russians were there too. I sold the pistol I took off the Chinese major, but I still have the coin from the Russian I killed in the field on another occasion. Both were advisors.

I stand by my comments on the Russian military's behavior in the Second World War. The reason Russia may have been surprised was the deal they made with the devil to mutually attack and carve up Poland. Russian greed for Polish land by surprise attack was paid in full when Russia was in turn surprised. Fun, isn't it?

Now that you've brought up the Finns, let's look at that a bit closer. When Russia attacked the small country of Finland in late 1940, the vastly outnumbered Finns handed the Russians their own heads. In one area alone, the Finns, outnumbered 4:1 slaughtered Russians. Of the Russian force of one tank brigade and two divisions totaling 50,000 men, the smaller Finn force of 10,000 men killed 27,500 Russians, had 2,100 taken prisoner, and lost 43 tanks against 650 Finns killed. The Russian 44th Division was destroyed by only 300 Finns. And that was on the Russian border! Again, Russia attacked a smaller country and got a good asswhipping. You think they'd really do better against Israel, who isn't right there, handy to reach?

My ignorance, as you suggested, apparently isn't nearly as great as yours.

And your comment on the greatness of the T-34 tank. Yes. It was a great tank. Based on the American Christie design, which the Russians bought a couple of, and then went home to copy and modify. Like how they get a lot of their technology.

And no, the T-34 didn't win the Second World War. Americans and British were knocking out Tigers and Panzers without T-34's. Wonder how that happened?



there is such a thing aclled "learing" from your mistakes, which the Russkies have did, so if they fight the jews in palistine, they will take Palistine.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by wantawanta]

[edit on 4-10-2008 by wantawanta]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by wantawanta
 


Your knowledge of history is only exceeded by your command of the English language and a keyboard.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Like the Vietnamese and Koreans were? You either don't know your history, or you made the mistake of comparing apples to oranges.


Exactly, like the Koreans and Vietnamese and i can't help if you can somehow use the dismal performance of the US armed forces against third world nations as evidence that it would do well against a first world force.


North Korea, after a spectacular advance got their asses kicked right back up north, right to the Korean/Chinese border.


Actually the advance was only spectacular in how the US forces sent as reinforcements proved quite unable to affect the balance of power until the North's very weak logistical situation were exploited. Either way the ROK/UN forces had a massive advantage in both men and material by the time they attempted a breakout from the Pusan perimeter.


It was a massive Chinese attack that caused the whole thing to end up more or less along the original borders. That had nothing to do with Russia, other than Russian pilots and equipment.


Of which there were not very many committed to battle. In fact the retreat of the US eight army were the longest retreat of any US military unit, ever. To suggest that this was merely the result of the Chinese attack ( machine guns and mortars) and not a more general condemnation of US hubris is probably letting them get off lightly .


Our pilots were fighting North Koreans and Russian pilots flying their own best stuff, and we kicked their asses too. They were good, but not good enough.



While the Sabres proved their superiority over the MiG when it was flown by Chinese and North Korean pilots, when the U.S. fighter went up against MiGs manned by Russians who were also veteran aces of the Second World War - as were many U.S. Sabre pilots - it was a different kettle of fish. The Russians of the 324th IAD (the first unit to enter combat) were commanded by no less that COL GEN Ivan Kozhedub, with 62 victories the Allied Ace of Aces of the Second World War; in fact, we now know that the Ace of Aces of the Korean War was not 16-victory ace Captain Joseph McConnell of the 51st FIW, but rather COL Yevgeny Pepelyaev, CO of the 196th Guards Fighter Regiment, a fierce believer in the adage "train hard, fight easy" who strove "to meet the American standard" with his pilots. During his 6-month tour in 1951, Peplyaev claimed 23 of the 104 victories scored by the 196th IAP.

Sergei Karamenko, a 13-victory MiG ace (on top of 12 WW2 victories), described combat between Sabres and MiGs thus: "The Sabre was the most dangerous threat to my friends and I in Korean skies. Our MiG-15 and the F-86 Sabre belonged in the same class, similar types with similar performance. They differed only in that the MiG had an advantage in rate of climb at altitude, while the Sabre was superior in maneuvering, especially at low level. These advantages could not always be used, however. The fight, as a rule, was decided in the first attack. After the first pass, we reached for altitude, while the Sabres rushed for the ground. Each tried to reach the altitude where it held a distinct advantage, and thus the battle faded."

Revised figures place USAF claims against the MiG-15 at 375, with admitted F-86 losses of 103, giving a 3.5:1 kill ratio. This is lower than the wartime claim of 10:1, but still very respectable.

members.aol.com...


And why did things go downhill after the first eight months?


Do we know today who "Casey Jones" was? YES, and Hinton's suspicions about his identity were right; he was not an Oriental. He was Sergei Makarovich Kramarenko, a member of the 176th GIAP (Guards Fighter Regiment) of the 324th IAD (Fighter Division) of the Voyenno Vozdushnye Sily, the Soviet Air Force. Actually Eagleston became the third aerial victory of Kapetan Sergei Kramarenko, who had shot down one F-80C on April 12 1951 and one F-86 on June 2. The score of that outstanding Russian pilot kept on rising, to 13 kills. On July 11 shot down the F-86A of Conrad Allard (KIA, despite the USAF sources credit the loss to "disorientation during a ferry flight") and on July 29 1951 bagged the F-86A BuNo 49-1098, which made him the First Ace of the Korean War and the First Jet-vs-Jet Ace of the History.

During the time that the "Honchos" (the nickname given by the Sabre pilots to excellent MiG pilots) were in Korea, between April 1951 and January 1952, they shot down or damaged beyond repair 158 UN aircraft against 68 losses, an overall 2:1 kill ratio. Their most successful month was October 1951, when the Soviet MiG-15s bagged 8 F-86s, 6 F-84Es, 2 RF-80As and one F-80C, one Meteor and 10 B-29As -25 victories- and suffered only 8 MiGs lost, achieving a 3:1 kill-to-losses ratio. During that period over 30 Soviet MiG-15 pilots became aces, among them Nikolai Sutyagin (21 kills); and also Yevgeni Pepelyayev (19), Lev Shchukin (17), the already mentioned Sergei Kramarenko (13), Mikhail Ponomaryev (11), Dmitri Samoylov (10), etc.

www.acepilots.com...



"The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.


The main Mission of the Mig were to interdict ground attack aircraft and since more than 3000 allied aircraft were written off ( due to all causes) it's odd to credit the sabre's with ALL the Mig's that were shot down or damaged. The half a dozen other jet fighters and fighter/bombers the US/allies deployed scored no hits or non of the Mig-15's were lost due to ground fire or 'accidents' ( the allies had more than a thousand ' non combat' losses so to be fair...) Why are the Soviet pilots claims of a thousand or more air victories so easily dismissed while everyone believes the outrageous claims made by the USAF ( remember how they shot down tens of thousands of German fighters?) despite the allies at least having enough aircraft in theater for such claims to be possible?

Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories. The Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 650 Sabres, while USAF records show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat."

www.rt66.com...

Either way the UN forces lost well over 700 jet aircraft to 'all causes' so i have no reason to suspect that very many more did not in fact fall to Mig-15's thus changing the exchange ratio's dramatically. The Mig-15's were hunting Us strategic bombers and fighter bombers while they were in turn being hunted by Sabre's thus mostly giving the advantage to the defending Sabre's.


The war in Viet Nam until after the Tet of 1968 was a guerilla war of Viet Cong in the South. It wasn't until 1972 that North Vietnames regulars entered the fray, and they in turn were shredded/destroyed.


They got blooded for sure but in the end that wasn't enough. My point was that the US armed forces tried it's bloody best to end the war without inviting Chinese entry ( having learnt SOMETHING from Korea) and failed despite it's best considered efforts. To suggest that the Vietnamese citizenry ( the one's who won the war) had nothing to do with this is admitting that you have not learned that improperly applied terror doesn't in fact work.


The Russians have never done all that well against anyone but Nazi Germany who was fighting a war on three sides, outnumbered significantly.


By June 1941 Nazi Germany had concentrated more than 90% of it's deployable divisions ( sans those on occupation duties in Norway, France, Poland and eastern Europe etc) to the invasion of the Soviet Union so there was no dilution of force worth discussing. The US had no yet formally entered the war and Britain could do little but defend it's own skies and hold out against Italian forces bolstered by two German divisions in North-Africa; the Russians basically got the full force of what Germany could muster at the time.


And the Germans still managed to eat up millions of Russians. Russians, when defending their homeland are tough, but they never do well when required to attack across their borders.


Yes, the German plan went eerily perfectly according to plan and in my opinion the Germans could have encircled Moscow by late August and possibly taken it before the end of September. Obviously that is something we can discuss at another time along with the rather obvious question and answer as to why most citizens are far better in defending their countries than attacking those of others.

Continued



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Back to Israel. Masses of top Russian equipment, provided by Russian advisor, using Russian tactics, and in overwhelming numbers, were defeated by the much smaller Israeli forces not only in 1967, but again in 1973. I just call it as I see it. Against overwhelming masses of Russian equipment, advisors, and tactics, Israel is 2-0.


Right, and if one looks at how those export model Russian equipment ( but as you say still often times rather superior to Israeli equipment) fared one can't do anything but conclude that as with the rest of the history of warfare one can not proceed to war bargaining on shear military power being enough. The Israeli's are simply better war fighters and this they have proved again and again despite the advantaged the Arab forces at first had from good Soviet equipment. As to the role of Soviet advisers and or how closely Arab tactics copied Soviet doctrine you would have to supply me with your sources as i never got that impression. In fact it was when the Arab forces moved outside their anti aircraft umbrella's or deviated from more standard military stratagems that they seemed to be handily defeated. In most respects it simply comes down the fact that the Arab armies would rather have stayed home and were better employed as 'anti insurgent' forces.


In Afghanistan, is was masses of Russian equipment, manned by Russian soldiers, commanded by Russian generals, using Russian tactics. Then only American equipment of significance was the Stingers. Russia got their asses kicked out of there too.


And it was that from day one really and still the stayed for eight years suffering about the same casualties as the US forces did in terms of numbers deployed and population sizes of the countries. Combat losses were in no way severe and equipment losses were about the same ( aircraft, tanks, Apc's ) beside for the masses of helicopters the US wrote off there. Whatever the case may be there were no major offensives on the Afghan rebels ( Yes, the Soviet Union backed what i consider to be a far more legitimate government than that of Diem's/Van Thieu ever was ) and they could not have and would not have existed in noticeable force if not for the billion odd dollars they were getting from 1980 onwards. To suggest that you can only buy stingers with that and that hundreds of daily rocket and bombing attack at the later stages were due to 'basement' operations is entirely fanciful. The US and allies did not create the insurgency against the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan but it made it sustainable against even the armed might of the Soviet Union.


To go against Israel, Russia would have to telegraph their intention, and due to geography, take an anticipated line of approach. That would be their destruction. The Israeli's have an uncanny ability to have assets in place at the highest levels in every enemy and potential enemy government. Why should Russia be so different, with such a large Jewish population, full of smart, determined Jews?


Presuming a conventional war perhaps the Israeli's could give the Russians the same type of treatment as the Fins did in the winter war but ultimately there is probably no way for Israel to gain any type of favorable settlement unless many other foreign powers intervene on Israel's side. What we can rather ask is where the hundreds of thousands of Russian Jews' loyalty lies and what they might do to disrupt Israel's resistance in case of war.


I'll say iit again. The numbers and pure logic would indicate a Russian slaughter. But history and intuition indicates an Israeli slaughter. I'd go with Israel.


I think your giving the Israeli's even more credit than they rightly deserve. You must remember that at various times Israel came close to being defeated ( as logic would indicate given the disparity in forces) despite it's great organizational capabilities. In fact if the Arab powers only had the fortitude to muddle on instead of becoming divided Israel could not have and would not have survived intact.


Israel would only have to hold the pass for two to three days before the US and other forces would reinforce.


Would the US forces be in a strategic position to do so given the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan? We are already presuming that there is enough political will so then we should consider where the US could dig up enough standing fighting power to aid Israel....


And traditionally, historically, intuitively, their equipment doesn't match up, their tactics are easily anticipated, and their skill levels while very high do not match up through the ranks. Certainly not motivation.


I agree. Russians citizens and soldiers seem even less interested in foreign interventions than their American and Europe and counterparts so frankly i don't know what Israel would have to be perceived doing against Russian to allow it's leaders to declare war against Israel. I think the Israel leadership and people know well enough that they have enough 'enemies' as is and that a additional major power will probably be more than sufficient to seal their fate once and for all. I reckon there are enough sensisble citizens on both sides to keep leaders sufficiently occupied with economic and developmental issues to stave off their various imperial ambitions for now. At least that's what i am hoping for...

As for all the critics of Russian conventional strategic means i would like to point out that they never planned to fight another conventional war. If one can not see Russian armored formations in a post nuclear war environment in the ETO you really have not looked at the conditions Russian conventional forces were meant to compliment and exploit.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Stellar, you've absolutely got to get this one book. If you never get another. It's called Edicts of Ares (Thirteen Absolute Rules of Warfare) by Michael Riggs.

As the author claims, when these thirteen rules (determined and proven over the millennia) are followed, not a single battle, campaign, or war was lost.

The guy did his homework and the most amazing thing is that after fully reading his work (I actually read and re-read it four times) you can look at any battle and I mean instantly know exactly what went wrong for one side, and what went right for the other. Instantly.

I read one of his principles (not rule) and thought that would make absolute sense. Then a couple months ago, I see the US Marines have adapted that principle, and have greatly increased their combat effectiveness while reducing casualties.

The author is one SOB. And some of these principles and rules are not only brutal, but counterintuitive. But then by the end, you're thinking, "Geez. That's the only way to do it!)

I enjoyed your responses, keep it up. How are things there?



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
EDIT: I suppose i should edit this post to reflect the fact that you seem to have taken somewhat of a liking/understanding as to perspective but frankly i am just too damn tired. Since you don't seem to be any kind of spring chicken there is the chance that i don't have the capacity to offend you had that been any part of my aim.
Oh well....


Originally posted by dooper
My friend, you were mistaken. There certainly were Russian pilots in Korea. Russia wanted to do two things. Reduce the lop-sides losses of their aircraft, and acquire data on the F-86 Sabre,


What lop sided losses? How were they supposed to conduct operations without significant losses against the soon to be USAF presence?


and how the MIG's would do while comparing highly experienced pilots against highly experienced pilots. Your denial does not negate the facts. And I never suggested that the Korean War was American against Russian. You came up with that. But it did demonstrate American equipment against Russian equipment.


Indeed as publicly admitted ( if we needed the help) the Mig-15 were in fact superior ( and generally equal to the F-86) to everything the United nations could bring to the fight and proved devastating in the hands of experienced Russian pilots.


Since we have few examples of Russians against Americans, we must go to the second and third tiers, or client states to match Soviet military equipment and practice against American equipment and practice.


And then your really comparing apple's and oranges. There are no third world country that can or normally does provide sufficient means to train it's men to Western/Russian standards.


And yes, the Soviet Union got kicked out of Afghanistan.


And yet they did not have to evacuate their personal by helicopters from embassy rooftops.... I am sorry but to compare the Russian withdrawal with the American one is to once again show up the fact that you did not know that the Afghan leadership had sufficient support to keep the western funded rebels at bay for a additional four years only later failing because of a actual Russian embargo of any oil supplies. The Southern Vietnamese government fell despite still receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in 'aid' and i suppose this isn't surprising considering just how little support the US backed dictator had.


I do not consider Wickipedia a good, authoritative source. It's good for general information, not very good for definitive historical knowlege. We all know what happened in Afghanistan to the Soviets, so let's just admit the truth, supported by the facts, and move on.


Well Wikipedia does pretty much what other online sources did before and considering the method employed the result is pretty damn impressive. I think the difference in means and methods were maybe not so very different but the reasons for intervention and the nature of the resistance was very much so. In Vietnam the US were doing it's best to destroy a national liberation movement while in Afghanistan the SU backed a government that were in fact reforming the country along the lines of popular will. The US were basically funding those sections of the Afghan society which had most power to lose when citizens gained right and education. Basically the US national security state were as always supporting the rich and powerful against the best interest of the general population


Americans did suffer 60,000 dead from 1963-1975, and by 1972, Americans were slaughtering NVA every time they met. And not only Chinese, but Russians were there too. I sold the pistol I took off the Chinese major, but I still have the coin from the Russian I killed in the field on another occasion. Both were advisors.


Chest thumping/killing aside i am surprised that there were enough Chinese and Russians involved in front lines to get killed quite so often? I mean what sort of operations were you conducting and where? As for the NVA getting slaughtered, yes, they never did develop anything like a effective counter to US artillery and air support beside getting in close fast which again involves taking large casualties. The NVA didn't have alternative means and this is very much reflected in the casualties they took.


I stand by my comments on the Russian military's behavior in the Second World War. The reason Russia may have been surprised was the deal they made with the devil to mutually attack and carve up Poland.


Stalin made a deal with the Germans because France and Britain did not want to make a deal with him. Either way Hitler was supposed to strike out East and when he managed the upset in the West Stalin was not about to reconsider a Alliance with Britain and France until he didn't have other options. As you may now from some sources , which i give some credence to, Russian forward deployments of men and material were by no means a indication of defensive preparation and it seems to me that Stalin was in fact trying to get the first blow in but failed to do so for lack of logistical prowess. Basically the Germans caught the Russian preparing for a offensive and mostly in total disarray....


Russian greed for Polish land by surprise attack was paid in full when Russia was in turn surprised. Fun, isn't it?


The Russians had no choice in the matter by that time. Stalin simply took part of Poland to prevent Germany from getting a even easier launching point into Russia.


Now that you've brought up the Finns, let's look at that a bit closer. When Russia attacked the small country of Finland in late 1940, the vastly outnumbered Finns handed the Russians their own heads. In one area alone, the Finns, outnumbered 4:1 slaughtered Russians. Of the Russian force of one tank brigade and two divisions totaling 50,000 men, the smaller Finn force of 10,000 men killed 27,500 Russians, had 2,100 taken prisoner, and lost 43 tanks against 650 Finns killed. The Russian 44th Division was destroyed by only 300 Finns. And that was on the Russian border! Again, Russia attacked a smaller country and got a good asswhipping. You think they'd really do better against Israel, who isn't right there, handy to reach?


This isn't 1939 you know. DId you miss the last sixty years of Russian progress and industrialization? What sort of army were they fighting with back then as compared to what they have now? Either way the argument can be taken many ways and i would be the last to be entirely surprised if the Israeli's were overcome without making the Russians pay dearly.


My ignorance, as you suggested, apparently isn't nearly as great as yours.


We are all ignorant; it's just a question of degree and or opinion.



And your comment on the greatness of the T-34 tank. Yes. It was a great tank. Based on the American Christie design, which the Russians bought a couple of, and then went home to copy and modify. Like how they get a lot of their technology.


The T-34 was in no way based on a American design and the Pentagon in fact rejected the Christie design which he then 'sold' to the SU. Either was the Christie design isn't what made the T-34 a great tank as the fact that they went with torsion bar suspensions on other tanks illustrated quite effectively.


And no, the T-34 didn't win the Second World War. Americans and British were knocking out Tigers and Panzers without T-34's. Wonder how that happened?


No they didn't and i in fact think the second world war was the Germans war to lose; not the other way as commonly believed. As you say the T-34 had great qualities in basics and while it's operationally the best thing that can happen to a field commander few men who got to choose would pick it over a Sherman or Mark IV as 'home'.

Stellar


[edit on 5-10-2008 by StellarX]

[edit on 5-10-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 

When the Americans began using Sabres, the results were in fact lop-sided. If you want to call 3.5:1 even, then we disagree on what even is.

Each plane had superiorities. Therefore, each group used different tactics to maximize those advantages. In a steep dive for example, often the MIG couldn't pull out.

I disagree that you can't compare the equipment in the hands of second or third tier groups. One may consider client states of each side as second or third tiers, thus the equipment will more fully account for itself. Keep in mind, the Soviets primarily in the 60's and 70's were often sharing tactical use of these weapons systems, that were in turn based on Soviet practice. In the Middle East, this was often a test bed for some of their first-line technology. Consider the effectiveness of Soviet equipment and tactics in the early hours of the Yom Kippur War.

The last American combat forces left Viet Nam in 1972, right after slaughtering the NVA during their Easter Offensive. Wholesale. Right after the North Vietnames pressed for a peace agreement, just prior to being bombed back toward the Stone Age. You're mistaken in the fall of Siagon, and how we got our embassy personnel out. That evacuation was not because we had fought back to our last redoubt.

And you're wrong that the US backed factions in Afghanistan that had the most to lose. We backed those who were taking the fight to the Soviets. Besides, the Russians did it to us in Viet Nam, and it was the least we could do to return the favor. Payback can be a bitch.

And I don't have any idea how many Russians or Chinese were in Viet Nam as either observers or advisors. I just know of one each. Our (my) operations? Long range patrols and ambushes.

Either way, Russia made their deal with Hitler. My only point there was that they got it right in the neck in turn.

You miss my point about the Finns. The technological advances of Russia over the past sixty years count for nothing. Others have advanced as well. And they can be consumed by a more highly trained, more motivated, but much smaller force. That's all through history, and kill ratios of superior numbers with similar equipment and weapons reaches 400:1.

If not for mass, the Russians are in deep trouble. (Nuclear weapons aside.)

Consider recently that the Syrians, using Russian air defense detection and shoot-down technology had their airspace penetrated and some mysterious facility (mysterious that neither Syria bitched about it, nor did Israel brag about it) was destroyed by air. And recently, when Russia went against little Georgia, they lost aircraft. Just imagine what would happen if the US gave them the good stuff.

I stand by my statement. The Russian T-34 most certainly was based on the Christie design, which the Russians bought a couple of.

And you are mistaken. I've personally talked to American tankers, and they talked about how they would have to gang-tackle a Tiger, often six at a time. But they killed them. The lesser Panzers were much easier, according to the tankers. Fact.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by StellarX
 

When the Americans began using Sabres, the results were in fact lop-sided. If you want to call 3.5:1 even, then we disagree on what even is.

Each plane had superiorities. Therefore, each group used different tactics to maximize those advantages. In a steep dive for example, often the MIG couldn't pull out.

I disagree that you can't compare the equipment in the hands of second or third tier groups. One may consider client states of each side as second or third tiers, thus the equipment will more fully account for itself. Keep in mind, the Soviets primarily in the 60's and 70's were often sharing tactical use of these weapons systems, that were in turn based on Soviet practice. In the Middle East, this was often a test bed for some of their first-line technology. Consider the effectiveness of Soviet equipment and tactics in the early hours of the Yom Kippur War.

The last American combat forces left Viet Nam in 1972, right after slaughtering the NVA during their Easter Offensive. Wholesale. Right after the North Vietnames pressed for a peace agreement, just prior to being bombed back toward the Stone Age. You're mistaken in the fall of Siagon, and how we got our embassy personnel out. That evacuation was not because we had fought back to our last redoubt.

And you're wrong that the US backed factions in Afghanistan that had the most to lose. We backed those who were taking the fight to the Soviets. Besides, the Russians did it to us in Viet Nam, and it was the least we could do to return the favor. Payback can be a bitch.

And I don't have any idea how many Russians or Chinese were in Viet Nam as either observers or advisors. I just know of one each. Our (my) operations? Long range patrols and ambushes.

Either way, Russia made their deal with Hitler. My only point there was that they got it right in the neck in turn.

You miss my point about the Finns. The technological advances of Russia over the past sixty years count for nothing. Others have advanced as well. And they can be consumed by a more highly trained, more motivated, but much smaller force. That's all through history, and kill ratios of superior numbers with similar equipment and weapons reaches 400:1.

If not for mass, the Russians are in deep trouble. (Nuclear weapons aside.)

Consider recently that the Syrians, using Russian air defense detection and shoot-down technology had their airspace penetrated and some mysterious facility (mysterious that neither Syria bitched about it, nor did Israel brag about it) was destroyed by air. And recently, when Russia went against little Georgia, they lost aircraft. Just imagine what would happen if the US gave them the good stuff.

I stand by my statement. The Russian T-34 most certainly was based on the Christie design, which the Russians bought a couple of.

And you are mistaken. I've personally talked to American tankers, and they talked about how they would have to gang-tackle a Tiger, often six at a time. But they killed them. The lesser Panzers were much easier, according to the tankers. Fact.
The Syrian Facility was shown on ABC news, and it was "photoshopped" this IS why the Isreali's had to use black and white imaging.
1. It takes a A.D. Team around 3 months to train to use a new A.D. system,
the Isreali strike came 3 weeks after Syrian got the (Pantsir-1) system.

2. The Isreali's didn't fly in the same area as the P-1.
(There's 2 ways to avoid A.D. System's, go under/around the radar beam)

3. In order for an nation to have true "coverage" you entire airspace has to have "overlapping" sam coverage, Syria doesn't.

The Russian's lossing 1-2 planes, is not true, but if it is, the Georgian's use Russian weapons to shoot it down, so I'm not suprised at it.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by wantawanta]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by wantawanta
 


Your knowledge of history is only exceeded by your command of the English language and a keyboard.
So are you saying C-SPAN lied that there is no 2 mile deep crater fron 60's nuke tests in Nevada?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by wantawanta
 


Friend, nukes don't leave a two-mile deep crater. So, you may wish to revise your statement.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
ummm.... weird topic... US vs UK... who would win? China vs Japan... who would win? My foot vs Your face.... well you get the point!



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
It's all moot anyway

Isreal would turn it into a Nuke fight

The entire concept of conventional is ridiculous, Russia would out man Isreal and out Fly and out Navy them...

Israel would launch knowing it's destruction was imminent and...

Israel would be no more

and then

Russia would be, devestated

100 Nukes, even half 50 or 1/4 25

would end Russia as a super power forever, the consequences would be insane...

Nuke Russias 20 major cities it falls into dissary, then...what happens to all IT'S NUKES

Maybe China goes in and secures the Teritory?

maybe the whole effin world makes a grab for the land

Would Russia try and control what was left of it from bunkers in mountains?

would the people inside them just go crazy?

who knows

But Russia as a nation wouldn't exist without it's top 20 most populated cities

and I have No idea how fast Isreal could recalibrate it's nukes...

Maybe Russia is just gone?

what if they get off 100 and... do heavy damage to nuke sites and mountain fortresses too?

They SAY the deep dug command centers can survive nuke strikes

But I wouldn't want to be inside one when 3-4 large nukes hit it...

Israeli intelligence is good... hit the 2-3 top command centers hard, there would be nothing left of russia but... small towns and villages some loose nukes and an army with nothing to defend

100 nukes is allot



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Your forgetting Russia has over 8500 SAM/ABM missiles so Isreal would destroy Rus but Isreal would be GONE.
Go check out Rus's ABM capabilites, and you'll see Isreal would be making the biggest mistake ever fighting Rus.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by 1000hanz]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by dooper
 


Many misconceptions and outright lies in your post.

First of all there weren't that many russian pilots if any at all in Korea, yet you are making that war out to be as if it was against Russia, sorry it wasn't it was against a highly inferior trained North Korean force with inferior equipment.
You keep using examples of Israel or other countries fighting countries armed with outdated soviet equipment and you make it seem as if that's some sort of testament as to Russia's actual combat effectiveness. Sorry that argument holds no water.
You said Soviet Union got beat up and kicked out of Afghanistan. Sorry can you name your sources please? Because that's not quite accurate. Soviet Union suffered 15,000 losses while Afghans suffered 2,000,000+ Russia left when it chose to leave and on its way out won a big battle to 'end its occupation with a symbolic victory' as quoted in wikipedia. Don't believe me go read up on it again. It's nothing compared to the slaughter Americans suffered in vietnam with 60,000 dead, now THAT'S an ass kicking.
Lastly, your entire argument keeps anchoring on the fact that Israel will win when the U.S. saves them, this thread isn't about a 2 on 1 it clearly asks Israel vs Russia. If you want to include tag team why don't you say who will win Russia + China vs. U.S. vs Israel? In either case Russia would be the clear and easy victor.

p.s. your comments on WW2 are greatly misinformed as well. The eastern front had by far the most German forces and their most elite forces of the entire entire war. Secondly, not only did Germany launch a surprise attack so Russia wasn't prepared but it wasn't just Germany attacking they had other countries helping out the Finns, etc. And on top of that it's not like Russia had all of its forces initially at the eastern front in fact half of Russia's forces were on the EAST COAST of Russia, i.e. Vladisvostok because they were anticipating a Japanese attack from the rear. But when the famed Russian spy (considered the greatest spy of all time) who spied on Japan finally convinced Stalin with his reports that Japan was not going to attack UNTIL AFTER Germans captured Moscow, that's when Russia quickly began shipping hordes of elite Siberian troops from the east to help defend Moscow, Stalingrad etc.
No offense to you I'm sure you're just being patriotic, but it simply makes you look ignorant when you speak on historical events without knowing the actual facts.
One last case in point if you don't believe me: Coincidentally just today on military/history/discovery channel (I forget which one of those exactly) was the show top 10 greatest tanks of all time. #1 tank of all time was the Russian T-34 and multiple historians on the show said that the ingenius and revolutionary design of the tank led to the breaking of the German army's back because the tank was the only thing on earth that could stand up to and defeat the up to then unstoppable German Panthers and Tigers. And the historians noted it was the single biggest reason for the turn around of the entire war and that if it wasn't for the T-34 being produced Germany might have won the war and you would have been speaking German right now.



Regarding your North Korea statment, they weren't just fighting NK.

There was also the little problem of 200,000+ Chinese soldiers infiltrating the border and waging battles against the US and Co. forces.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by breeno]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join