U.S. vs. China

Originally posted by rapier28
There were no evidence of tanks driving over people.

-----

Most if not all of the deaths came by guns.

Wrong. There are photographs showing the splattered pulpy remains of people who were run over by tanks.

[edit on 17-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Monica, that is just a flat out lie.

The only photograph which were shown were a man standing infront of a tank, the tank never drove over him, it drove around him.

I'am happy to be proven wrong if you were to show those photographs to me.

China is catching up fast but it is still a long way to go. their tech is improving fast but by the time they get somthing better then before US will probilibly got somthing else better. + there are a lot of people in china don't like the government that rule over them and a lot want change but they are too scared of speaking out. also growing too fast is not always good, such as their encomey, one wrong step would make them really broke. i hope china and US would not go to war (nuke would be used when one side is losing or seeing no hopes of winning, i am chinese and i love both the US and China. i don't want the human race to go back to the stone age again.

if we do go to war with china,who will match with the US and who will match with china? if china invades taiwan.

Regardless of whether or not Tianenman Square (spelling?) involved tanks actually driving over people or not, it was a massacre. Gee, so gunning down college students is okay, but driving tanks over them, that's only when you get upset

No one probably knows what really happened, unless there are actual photos of the tanks, but lots of people were killed, and that was not any violent protest. Even if it had been, there is this thing called tear gas and such that they can use, which many Asian countries' police forces have used to subdue protests that started to turn violent.

China's treatment of the family members of victims of the incident was also very mean.

Broadsword, if you were talking to me, i was merely arguing over factual details. I have studied Tianneman and was only making a factual observation, not a opinion.

As for Non-lethal weapons and why China never used them, the answer is quite simple. They never had any at the time, no rubber bullets no nothing.

Tiannemen itself was not as many believe "college students vs government". It was a power struggle in the government. The Jiang Zemin generation of Chinese leaders made they stake to power on the back of that power struggle, which Zhao Ziyang lost.

For example, the Beijing military forces refused to heed the call of the Anti-Zhao forces because the head of the Beijing military division was a friend of Zhao and the Beijing military refused orders to fire upon Beijing people.

Under-educated forces from China's poor areas were brought in and committed the massacre in Tianneman Square. As you can see, at the time, China was close to a civil war with the military divided. In fact, Zhao himself only went to the students when he knew he lost the power struggle. Zhao was not the angel that the west made him out to be.

To view it as a "student struggle" is naive to say the least.

Whoever said that US has the Best airforce is right we do have the best and the best trained pilots, but then you said but how does US know they have the best, well it starts like this

NK it was F-86 against Mig-15 Basicaly the same aircraft but The mig had greater handling and better climb rate but the US had better trained pilots, The US pilots using there F-86s, for everyone of our F-86s shot down Ten Mig-15 were shot down in the end 810 Mig-15 were shot down while the US only lost 80 some aircraft but here is the interesting part, of the 810 mig-15 shot down 792 of them were piloted by russian pilots who were at the time suppose to be better then the US pilots" dont quote me on this but i believe during the NK war Russian pilots were getting more Flight training hours then the US pilots were and Russia had the better aircraft"

so now we look at the fact that out of airforces in the world US pilots go through more training and now have the better aircraft, and as of right now
US is #1 in Pilot training and the quality and quanity of the aircraft they have #2 is Russia there pilots only lack training, if russia had the money to Train there pilots like the US does and provide enough mig29 and su-27 they could have a airforce to be reckoned with.

So if Russia is behind US and China is behind Russia that means that no country as of yet has pilots to compete with the US airforce.

Originally posted by zakattack
NK it was F-86 against Mig-15 Basicaly the same aircraft but The mig had greater handling and better climb rate but the US had better trained pilots, The US pilots using there F-86s, for everyone of our F-86s shot down Ten Mig-15 were shot down in the end 810 Mig-15 were shot down while the US only lost 80 some aircraft but here is the interesting part, of the 810 mig-15 shot down 792 of them were piloted by russian pilots who were at the time suppose to be better then the US pilots" dont quote me on this but i believe during the NK war Russian pilots were getting more Flight training hours then the US pilots were and Russia had the better aircraft"

Those numbers look very suspect, during the NK war, the Russian pilots dominated the skies. I would like to know your source of those numbers.

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
I wouldn't have been surprised if the US was the iniator of the trade embargos against China back in the days of Tienamin Square...

And did China not deserve that? That was a heinous act that deserved some kind of response. They could have moved those college kids out of the Square without driving tanks over them.

Indeed what they did was a horrible display of governmental brute force... However Arms Embargos didn't solve anything... They could still do what they did in 1989 - today... They could have done it in 1900...

It was just the US foresight that led to the arms embargoes... Economic embargoes would have been better...

Originally posted by rapier28

Originally posted by zakattack
NK it was F-86 against Mig-15 Basicaly the same aircraft but The mig had greater handling and better climb rate but the US had better trained pilots, The US pilots using there F-86s, for everyone of our F-86s shot down Ten Mig-15 were shot down in the end 810 Mig-15 were shot down while the US only lost 80 some aircraft but here is the interesting part, of the 810 mig-15 shot down 792 of them were piloted by russian pilots who were at the time suppose to be better then the US pilots" dont quote me on this but i believe during the NK war Russian pilots were getting more Flight training hours then the US pilots were and Russia had the better aircraft"

Those numbers look very suspect, during the NK war, the Russian pilots dominated the skies. I would like to know your source of those numbers.

yes my number were off but not by much anyways here is where i got my info and you can go to any book store and look at the book called Modern military aircraft and it says this as well
www.wpafb.af.mil...

The Russian pilots did NOT dominate the skies over North Korea. Even the international aviation magazines acknowlege that.

However, this was NOT necessarily due to Russia having bad pilots. that is a misconception. Rather, it was due to bad rotation of the pilots. The U.S. basically did this....a couple of new pilots were mixed in here and there with a large group of veteran pilots, so that there was always a good deal of rather experienced pilots, with a few newbies.

Russia and N.K, on the other hand, did this: they'd have their experienced pilots rotated out of N.K., and bring in a whole batch of fresh newbie pilots. These newbie pilots, even though they had a superior plane, were in general not much of a match for the more experienced American pilots.

Had Russia rotated their pilots in the same way America did, the outcome might have been a bit different. Russia's and N.K.'s pilots were well-trained, but they just didn't ahve the necessary experience most of the time; Russia had experience pilots, but they rotated them all out too fast.

Whenever the newbie Russian and N.K. pilots would start to become veterans, they'd be rotated out and replaced with more newbie pilots.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The Russian pilots did NOT dominate the skies over North Korea. Even the international aviation magazines acknowlege that.

The facts say otherwise.

The 13-1 kill ratio was U.S. pilots vs. the atrociously bad North Korean and Chinese fighters, not Soviet fighters. While Soviet fighters were limited in involvement, the kill ratio was in the favor of the Soviets. Take a look:

U.N. aircraft lost to Soviet pilots: 1,300 (around 500 F-86)
Soviet aircraft lost: 345
Soviet MiG-15 - F-86 kill ratio: 4-1

American and Soviet information do not contradict each other either.

16 Soviet pilots made ace, Evgeni Pepelyaev being the leader with 23. Several of these aces were awarded the Gold Star Medal of the Hero of the Soviet Union.


[edit on 18-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The Russian pilots did NOT dominate the skies over North Korea. Even the international aviation magazines acknowlege that.

The facts say otherwise.

The 13-1 kill ratio was U.S. pilots vs. the atrociously bad North Korean and Chinese fighters, not Soviet fighters. While Soviet fighters were limited in involvement, the kill ratio was in the favor of the Soviets. Take a look:

U.N. aircraft lost to Soviet pilots: 1,300 (around 500 F-86)
Soviet aircraft lost: 345
Soviet MiG-15 - F-86 kill ratio: 4-1

American and Soviet information do not contradict each other either.

16 Soviet pilots made ace, Evgeni Pepelyaev being the leader with 23. Several of these aces were awarded the Gold Star Medal of the Hero of the Soviet Union.


[edit on 18-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Exactly, the Sabres ratio was 10:1 vs. any plane in the region which basically was.. Asian pilots *rolleyes*, but the 4:1 rate is Russians in Fagots vs. Sabres

Originally posted by Angrykirill
Exactly, the Sabres ratio was 10:1 vs. any plane in the region which basically was.. Asian pilots *rolleyes*, but the 4:1 rate is Russians in Fagots vs. Sabres

This also isn't a case of disinformation. Everyone, yes, INCLUDING U.S. authorities, all confirm that the Soviets dominated allied air forces during the Korean War, despite the fact the Soviets were limited in their overall involvement. There is no contradiction of data. The only contradiction that could arise is if people confused the numbers as the total number of communist fighters as opposed to just Soviet aircraft.

One correction, Nikolai Sutyagen was the leading Soviet ace with 21 kills.

The 13-1 kill ratio was incredibly lop-sided, but I say much of that has changed and we won't be seeing such lop-sided ratios in favor of U.S. fighters much anymore.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Hmm provide me some sources for the everything fact, I haven't been able to find any.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by Angrykirill
Exactly, the Sabres ratio was 10:1 vs. any plane in the region which basically was.. Asian pilots *rolleyes*, but the 4:1 rate is Russians in Fagots vs. Sabres

This also isn't a case of disinformation. Everyone, yes, INCLUDING U.S. authorities, all confirm that the Soviets dominated allied air forces during the Korean War, despite the fact the Soviets were limited in their overall involvement. There is no contradiction of data. The only contradiction that could arise is if people confused the numbers as the total number of communist fighters as opposed to just Soviet aircraft.

One correction, Nikolai Sutyagen was the leading Soviet ace with 21 kills.

The 13-1 kill ratio was incredibly lop-sided, but I say much of that has changed and we won't be seeing such lop-sided ratios in favor of U.S. fighters much anymore.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Show me some credible proof of this, i have traveled the "smithsonian" spelling.... As well as the Flight Museum in Tennessee At both places the F-86 is on Display and both say that the F-86 only lost between 70-80 aircraft during that time for the F-86 only, now there may have been more losses inlcuding the F-86 and other planes.

I have also been to an Aircraft museum in Russia and i cant even remember what its called in russian language let alone me remembering how to spell it, anyways in russia there is a Mig-15 and on the Info Board right in front of the plane it says that the russians pilots"it does say Russian pilots" Suffered a 9-1 loss of aircraft against the F-86, and every Military book on planes i have ever read has had numbers very close to this.

I have to disagree. The "facts" don't say anything, because the information I have read states that the F-86 Sabre was dominant over the skies over North Korea. The Sabres maintained an outstanding kill ratio against the opposition, due to the fact that the F-86 Sabre was a superior plane to many of the russian planes (not every pilot over N.K. flew in a nice new Mig 15) and also the experience level. The Korean/Chinese/Russian pilots were far less experienced then the American ones.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
and also the experience level. The Korean/Chinese/Russian pilots were far less experienced then the American ones.

It was only a few years after WWII. There were Soviet pilots with lot's of combat experience flying with the NK Airforce. Some of those pilots had flown against the German Airforce.

Originally posted by rapier28
Broadsword, if you were talking to me, i was merely arguing over factual details. I have studied Tianneman and was only making a factual observation, not a opinion.

As for Non-lethal weapons and why China never used them, the answer is quite simple. They never had any at the time, no rubber bullets no nothing.

Tiannemen itself was not as many believe "college students vs government". It was a power struggle in the government. The Jiang Zemin generation of Chinese leaders made they stake to power on the back of that power struggle, which Zhao Ziyang lost.

For example, the Beijing military forces refused to heed the call of the Anti-Zhao forces because the head of the Beijing military division was a friend of Zhao and the Beijing military refused orders to fire upon Beijing people.

Under-educated forces from China's poor areas were brought in and committed the massacre in Tianneman Square. As you can see, at the time, China was close to a civil war with the military divided. In fact, Zhao himself only went to the students when he knew he lost the power struggle. Zhao was not the angel that the west made him out to be.

To view it as a "student struggle" is naive to say the least.

I just read an interview with a man who had both legs amputated when a tank ran over his legs that fateful day. I'll try to find it.

Student struggle, whatever, those were unarmed civillians.

Originally posted by Facefirst
Student struggle, whatever, those were unarmed civillians.

They were merely pawns in a bigger game.

Sad but true.