Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

LordsFire said:
No, I'm asking you. Actually present some information, or admit your point was bogus.

Even tanks aren't the best comparison; nowhere is technological capability so important as in air combat and defense, missile technology included.
Click to expand...
He's probably talking about the Fall of Mosul and the time afterward where an entire division of the Iraqi Army equipped with all the best US stuff vs a few hundred ISIL in Toyotas just dropped it all and ran / refused to fight because they had no heart, no spine and no command willing or able to force them to fight.

Absolutely none of which is the responsibility of the US equipment being deficient or unsuitable, a fully fueled and armed Abrams doesn't have a backup AI to fight a bicycle riding jihadi when the crew bails and runs because that one jihadi has more conviction and determination in one strand of his lice infested beard than an entire division of troops.
 
Last edited:
Wiki
en.wikipedia.org

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Iraqi Army service

Between 2010 and 2012 the U.S. supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq. In mid-2014, they saw action when the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant launched the June 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. During three months, about one-third of the Iraqi Army's M1 tanks had been damaged or destroyed by ISIL and some were captured by opposing forces. By December 2014, the Iraqi Army only had about 40 operational Abrams left. That month, the U.S. Department of State approved the sale of another 175 Abrams to Iraq.[62][63][64]

Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite Kata'ib Hezbollah (Hezbollah Brigades) were reported to operate M1 Abrams, and released publicity showing the tanks being transported by trucks to take part in the Battle of Mosul. It is not known whether the tanks were captured from ISIS, seized from Iraq's military, or handed over.[65]

One Iraqi-operated Abrams has been nicknamed "The Beast" after it became the lone working tank when taking back the town of Hit in April 2016, destroying enemy fighting positions and IED emplacements.[66]

In October 2017, Abrams were used by the Iraqi security forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces (also called Al-Hashd al-Shaabi) in assaults against the Kurdistan Regional Government Peshmerga in the town of Altun Kupri (also called Prde). It was claimed by Kurdish commanders that at least one Abrams was destroyed by the Peshmerga.[67]
 
lloyd007 said:
Absolutely none of which is the responsibility of the US equipment being deficient or unsuitable, a fully fueled and armed Abrams doesn't have a backup AI to fight a bicycle riding jihadi when the crew bails and runs because that one jihadi has more conviction and determination in one strand of his lice infested beard than an entire division of troops.
Click to expand...
And that is the point I'm trying to prove - in incompetent/not motivated / badly trained hands, the quality of the equipment doesn't count.

In many of the wars post-Cold War, the US has gone against badly trained, poorly supported forces. No wonder the USAF gets such numbers.
If you send USAF forces trained in, say Mig-29 or Su-27 but with the training and support that the USAF has, against the SA air force (some of the most advanced F-15 and European planes) they get the same results.
With some exceptions, is not the toys, is the training, doctrine, support, and moral of the forces that count more.
 
paulobrito said:
And that is the point I'm trying to prove - in incompetent/not motivated / badly trained hands, the quality of the equipment doesn't count.

In many of the wars post-Cold War, the US has gone against badly trained, poorly supported forces. No wonder the USAF gets such numbers.
If you send USAF forces trained in, say Mig-29 or Su-27 but with the training and support that the USAF has, against the SA air force (some of the most advanced F-15 and European planes) they get the same results.
With some exceptions, is not the toys, is the training, doctrine, support, and moral of the forces that count more.
Click to expand...

...You realize that almost all the kills in the image I linked came from Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War 1, right?

Gulf war 2 is the only other time the US has fought another power that had an air force since, if the Iraqi's even did at that point, because I'm having a hard time pulling together data on that.

All of which brings it around to the point that, when rating Russian missiles used in modern day, the technological gap matters there more than anywhere else. On top of the fact that the USSR had a long history of copying shit from other nations in order to be able to do it at all, at no point anywhere in any service any of that hardware has had ever in any conflict against NATO gear ever has it performed on par or better.

Further, the Russian military is badly-trained and poorly supported, as evidenced by their shit performance in Ukraine.

So, why exactly should we expect Russian technology to give an impressive performance at all?
 
Looks like the two Private Army Warlords Prigozhin and Kadyrov are thankfully coordinating their maneuvers of replacing Wagner Mercenaries with Chechen Troops in Bakhmut via TikTok and other social media platforms.



 
paulobrito said:
And that is the point I'm trying to prove - in incompetent/not motivated / badly trained hands, the quality of the equipment doesn't count.

In many of the wars post-Cold War, the US has gone against badly trained, poorly supported forces. No wonder the USAF gets such numbers.
If you send USAF forces trained in, say Mig-29 or Su-27 but with the training and support that the USAF has, against the SA air force (some of the most advanced F-15 and European planes) they get the same results.
With some exceptions, is not the toys, is the training, doctrine, support, and moral of the forces that count more.
Click to expand...
Both Serb and Iraqi forces were full of combat veterans before they faced the US military.
Also some of the advantages in support and doctrine absolutely rely on certain kinds of technological toys being there. If we talk aircraft, for example, AWACS support is a big one.
But what good is that when you don't have AWACS or your plane doesn't have a datalink and has to be homed in by ground control or a flying command post by voice radio like in the old times.
 
Serb Air Force emerged almost intact when the war ended. Iraq is a veteran force - of a special type.
Zero initiative, scripted battles veteran.
 
paulobrito said:
Serb Air Force emerged almost intact when the war ended. Iraq is a veteran force - of a special type.
Zero initiative, scripted battles veteran.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure almost every Serbian MiG-29 fighter jet that went up to challenge the NATO Bombers was downed by F-15's or F-16's.
 
paulobrito said:
Serb Air Force emerged almost intact when the war ended. Iraq is a veteran force - of a special type.
Zero initiative, scripted battles veteran.
Click to expand...
Uh, that is wrong.
Serbian-Montenegreian airforce lost all of its MIGs if not most. 6 were shot down.
3 by f 15, two by F 16s. Last shoot down was friendly fire. Then 4 were lost on the ground.
I wouldn't call that intact.
And all NATO lost is a F-16C and a 117
 
paulobrito said:

From this, extrapolate how credible these claims are.
Click to expand...
I'm talking actually verifiable claims of shoot downs.
And the friendly fire came from the Serbians reporting it.
And as someone in yhe military who knows how hard BDA is to get.
They say what is assessed.
They can not verify as quickly as they claim they did.
They can say "we assess this" or "we assess that"
 
Airforces all over the world always overclaim.
From WW2 (maybe WW1) to today and in the future for sure.
I know that I'd been there, doing that.
 
Zachowon said:
I'm talking actually verifiable claims of shoot downs.
Click to expand...
Part of the article I posted...
Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58.
 
Husky_Khan said:
Where does it reference Zach's response regarding your claim about the Serbian Air Force? Feel free to quote the relevant specific portion.
Click to expand...
That the 'certified' numbers of the kills are not credible at all?
Indeed, is interesting that that article doesn't talk at all about the air kills, and I give you that but shows that the claims of the air force are dubious at best, and a full lot of crap at worst.
 
paulobrito said:
That the 'certified' numbers of the kills are not credible at all?
Indeed, is interesting that that article doesn't talk at all about the air kills, and I give you that but shows that the claims of the air force are dubious at best, and a full lot of crap at worst.
Click to expand...

Did the Serbians claim less aircraft lost?
 
For the RNLAF F 16 account.

RTS :: Niko nije rekao neću, drugi deo

Nastavak dokumentarnog serijala o pilotima MIG-a 29 bavi se sudbinama Predraga Milutinovića, Nebojše Nikolića, Dragana Ilića, Bore Zoraje, Abdula Emetija i Dragana Milenkovića. Saznajte više o emisijima, TV programu i pogledajte šta se trenutno prikazuje na kanalima Javnog servisa Republike Srbije
web.archive.org web.archive.org
Serbian account of the 6 pilots killed.
Wierd.
Even Serbia agrees
 
Zachowon said:
For the RNLAF F 16 account.

RTS :: Niko nije rekao neću, drugi deo

Nastavak dokumentarnog serijala o pilotima MIG-a 29 bavi se sudbinama Predraga Milutinovića, Nebojše Nikolića, Dragana Ilića, Bore Zoraje, Abdula Emetija i Dragana Milenkovića. Saznajte više o emisijima, TV programu i pogledajte šta se trenutno prikazuje na kanalima Javnog servisa Republike Srbije
web.archive.org web.archive.org
Serbian account of the 6 pilots killed.
Wierd.
Even Serbia agrees
Click to expand...
Funny, NATO claimed 121 planes were destroyed, and you are fixed in the very few that they can prove - 6 MiG-29.
Oh, wait - the magic words are planes and helicopters. Still, no proof of that. Apparently only proof of 6 MiG-29.
 
paulobrito said:
Funny, NATO claimed 121 planes were destroyed, and you are fixed in the very few that they can prove - 6 MiG-29.
Oh, wait - the magic words are planes and helicopters. Still, no proof of that. Apparently only proof of 6 MiG-29.
Click to expand...
The Serbian had 14 total migs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top