posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:01 AM
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What I don't understand is how could the allies down 150 iraqi aircraft while the iraqis downed only a few and I believe it was from the ground.
Towards the end of the second world war the once might Luftwaffe were losing a hundred or more fighters destroyed in training ( they were under
immense pressure to training replacements), operational accidents, bombing of airfields or attempting to defend their airfields/cities or penetrate
strategic bomber formation fighter screens.... If your outmatched your outmatched and having hundreds of inferior aircraft may or may not score
victories on a enemy air force that at the time had 5000 operational fighters.
Given the technological gap the Iraqi's were faced with and how outnumbered their few air-air victories might be more surprising than disappointing.
Soviet aircraft can't be that lousy as I have flown both migs and sukhois in LockOn-MAC versus f-15s and f-18s. Yes nato aircraft have
better computer systems and slightly all around better designs BUT you would have to be grossly incompetant not to be able to shoot down ANY aircraft.
Even if you took Russian models ( not the export versions) and Russian pilots and forced them to fight in the same low support / vastly outnumbered
scenario they would still lose very badly. Provided that most other things are equal being that vastly outnumbered is normally sufficient in and of
itself to create very disproportionate casualties. Obviously whatever happens in a game simulation may or may not have much to do with reality as
it's entirely dependent on the data fed into the system; even the air force simulators are very much dependent on the input data which obviously
involves a great deal of educated estimates and other guess work.
Anyway you don't need super-dooper SAM systems because sams are merely speed bumps to a determined enemy. If you can't stop non-stealth
aircraft then what chance do you have to stop f-117s, b-2s and f-22s?
Anti air defenses are much like any other kind of defense in that if you do not have enough of it may simply be bypassed or breached by a superior
concentration of force. Iraqi's air defenses were largely reliant on comparatively old SAM's and a very large number of much shorter range anti air
gun defenses. These defense were very well integrated ( One of the best in the world) but with the flaw that the Iraqi individual systems were
somewhat dependent on tracking and engagement data from the network. Either way it simply lacked the long range SAM' defenses that characterises the
defenses of the Soviet union ( on which it modelled it's system) and had no comparatively massive air force to provide any means of staging a mobile
defense or of exploiting opportunities presented by AA defenses disrupting enemy penetrations/attacks.
Had i been around to judge i would probably have thought that the Iraqi's would manage more; there were however better informed experts that got the
numbers very close to right before the conflict and given the size of the coalition air force in retrospect it seems that the Iraqi's did just about
as well as they could have hoped for and perhaps even better given how the coalition actual fought that as a war and risked assets in raids that were
playing to Iraqi's strengths. Those low level Tornado raids on air fields comes readily to mind!
If I was sadam hussein or gadhaffi I would have about a hundred tripple A batteries and lots and lots of manpads such as stingers or iglas.
Trick the enemy to think they are invicible, as they are anyway, then hit them while they fly away from you. Thats what the serbs did to the nato
airstrikes and the afghans did to the russians when the cia supported the mujahaden.
How would you pay for all that? What would you do with the older equipment? Why would the hostile aircraft operate low enough for your short range
defenses to hit them when they can lay waste to your countries infrastructure from altitude? The Serbian military/air force remained intact because it
refused battle with NATO knowing that it would lose quickly and badly if it tried. The fact that it was 'always' geared to provide e mobile defense to
cover the withdrawal of ground forces to the central highland ( facing a Soviet or NATO invasion) helps to explain why it could and did fight in the
way it did.
Sometimes the simplest and cheapest solutions are also the best solutions. Especially if your a third world country with a limited defense
budget. Its a shame they have to spend so much on armaments when they could spend that money elsewhere.
There is nothing simple or cheap about offering noticeable resistance to a NATO sized force. If your a third world country it's mostly ridiculous to
even consider arming yourself in what would offer the best resistance to NATO as what would 'work' ( allow you to shoot down a few planes) against
NATO would probably ensure that you lose badly against your neighbors.
Or develop small yield nukes with a reliable delivery system. Just my two cents since I am not a weapons expert. The only real winners in
war are the bankers and the military-industrial complex. Lets not feed the beast more than we have to.
Using nukes against countries that can litterally nuke you off the map ( if your a third world country) is just a very bad idea! The whole purpose of
nuclear weapons is deterrence as their actual usage, when there is such a disparity in numbers of nukes, would ensure your prompt destruction.
I agree that we should do less of this war thing but that's rather pointless given who has been attacking who in recent memory. The only reason why
the world has not been united under one king/queen dictator is because people fight back and the only reason why it will remain that way is if people
keep on resisting even when it's so very costly.
edit on 28-3-2011 by StellarX because: Wrong thread