Any confirmed kills with AIM-54 Phoenix missile?
cor...@ridgecrest.ca.us
Chris Douglas <cdou...@origin.ea.com> wrote:
>My understanding was that an F-14 with a FULL load of 6 Phoenixes
>can't trap. But you rarely see this configuration, and I might be
>mistaken anyway.
I believe the landing limitation on the F-14A with six Phoenixs was
the fact that the TF-30's weren't powerful enough to ensure a safe
landing with a full load of Phoenixs if one engine was out. The F-14B
and D with the F110 engines doesn't have this restriction.
Tim
Andrew Toppan
Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
> Does anyone know if there's ever been a confirmed air-to-air combat kill
> with an AIM-54 Phoenix missile?
Iran has killed some of Iraq's air farce with it.
> but I've heard it's extremely expensive ($1 million per),
I think it's around $500,000.
> it only fires from an F-14,
True.
> and early models
> had to be dropped into the ocean before an F-14 could land because it
> was too heavy or something like that.
Rubbish. The early versions of the Phoenix weigh no more than later
versions.
Now, the F-14A does have some landing weight restrictions (I think); a
heavily loaded aircraft might have to dump some stuff to get down to that
weight. But fuel and other ordnance would be dumped before AIM-54s. The
specific version of the AIM-54 is not relevant at all.
Welcome to the ongoing, never-ending debate about whether the AIM-54
us The Ultimate k00l Missile or not.
---
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- **NOTE NEW WEB SITE URLs**
Rail, Sea and Air InfoPages and FAQ Archive (Military & TC FAQs)
[http://www.membrane.com/~elmer/] mirror [http://www.announce.com/~elmer/]
If Yoda so strong in force is, why words in right order he cannot put?
Wonginator
Does anyone know if there's ever been a confirmed air-to-air combat kill
and has a longer range than any other air-to-air missile (don't know
anything about its counter-ECM abilities), but I've heard it's extremely
expensive ($1 million per), it only fires from an F-14, and early models
had to be dropped into the ocean before an F-14 could land because it
was too heavy or something like that.
Anyone care to add to the positive or negative qualities of the Phoenix
missile?
Any comments are greatly appreciated.
Leland
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Wong Scicon Technologies
lel...@scicontech.com TEL(714)252-1617
Pro/ENGINEER master 8-) FAX(714)252-1341
Words to live by:
"Assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups."
Everett McGill - Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)
Quote of the month:
"Believing oneself to be perfect is often a sign of a
delusional mind."
Brent Spiner as "Data" - Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Agtabby
Monday (I think) in the "Wall Street Journal" there was an artical on
companies competing for the next heat seeker missle contract. This
artical claimed that in mock combat the US planes were shot down most of
the time by other planes, if they carried the Russian AA-11 Archer heat
seeker. supposedly it can turn tighter, etc.
Any truth to this?
Andrew
Chih-Ping Kuo
In article <58n5m3$m...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
> Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
> > with an AIM-54 Phoenix missile?
I believe during the Iran-Iraq war, an US F-14 shot at an Iraq Mirage from
over 100 miles out and miss.
beyond these two cases, I don't think there is any other record of Phoenix
fire during battle.
--
Ping Kuo
pi...@ricochet.net
standard disclaimers applied
Jeff Crowell
Andrew Toppan (el...@WPI.EDU) wrote:
: Now, the F-14A does have some landing weight restrictions (I think); a
: heavily loaded aircraft might have to dump some stuff to get down to that
: weight. But fuel and other ordnance would be dumped before AIM-54s.
Yes and no. As I recall it, there were pylon limitations at the root
of this. In short, the Tomkitty was not approved for arrested landings
aboard ship with AIM-54s on the cranked wing pylons because the pylons
weren't up to the task. I'd suspect it was a 'jolt' load limitation,
rather than a g load limitation (i.e. the bonk on landing rather than
pulling g's).
That's as a separate limitation in addition to the aircraft gross weight
limitations.
Jeff
--
#######################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# BLD Quality Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
#######################################################
Rules of a gunfight, number 22:
A hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .45.
Bob Keeter
Yes!
All you need to do is to just check out all of the "improvements" planned
for the AIM-9X and compare to the "features" of the AA-11 in you convenient
Janes'! Particular attention to off-angle capability, range, etc.
Regards
bk
Dave Kohli
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:03:22 -0800, Wonginator <lel...@scicontech.com>
wrote:
>Does anyone know if there's ever been a confirmed air-to-air combat kill
>with an AIM-54 Phoenix missile? Statistically, this missile is faster
>and has a longer range than any other air-to-air missile (don't know
>anything about its counter-ECM abilities), but I've heard it's extremely
>expensive ($1 million per), it only fires from an F-14, and early models
>had to be dropped into the ocean before an F-14 could land because it
>was too heavy or something like that.
>
>Anyone care to add to the positive or negative qualities of the Phoenix
>missile?
>Any comments are greatly appreciated.
>
I don't know if any combat kills have been made, maybe Iran
achieved such but I'm pretty sure that the USN has not. The major
drawback of the missle (other than the cost) is the difficulty of
IDing your target before you blow him out of the air. On a positive
note, the missle is fire-and-forget, so you don't have to illuminate
the target for the entire attack, thus exposing yourself to a cheaper,
shorter ranged IR type missle.
Chris Douglas
Andrew Toppan wrote:
>
> Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
> > with an AIM-54 Phoenix missile?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > and early models
> > had to be dropped into the ocean before an F-14 could land because it
> > was too heavy or something like that.
>
> versions.
>
> heavily loaded aircraft might have to dump some stuff to get down to that
> specific version of the AIM-54 is not relevant at all.
>
> Welcome to the ongoing, never-ending debate about whether the AIM-54
> us The Ultimate k00l Missile or not.
>
My understanding was that an F-14 with a FULL load of 6 Phoenixes
can't trap. But you rarely see this configuration, and I might be
mistaken anyway.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Douglas - cdou...@origin.ea.com
Production Designer/Animator - Origin Systems, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The freedom of the marketplace is not merely the best guarantor of our
prosperity. It is the chief guarantor of our rights, and a government
that seizes control of the economy for the good of the people ends up
seizing control of the people for the good of the economy." --Bob Dole
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RedLight1
From what I've learned, the Archer is much better than the AIM-9. It has
thrust-vectoring, so it can turn tighter. It also has an excellent
'off-boresight' launch capability. To top it off, the Archer has a better
range than the Sidewinder. Supposedly, it is one of the most capable IR
missiles ever built!
Greg
>Does anyone know if there's ever been a confirmed air-to-air combat kill
>and has a longer range than any other air-to-air missile (don't know
>expensive ($1 million per), it only fires from an F-14, and early models
>had to be dropped into the ocean before an F-14 could land because it
>was too heavy or something like that.
According to an F-14 pilot and RIO from the Grim Reapers squadron, who
I interviewed for a newspaper article this summer, The Phoenix has
never scored a confirmed kill (it has never even been fired at a
hostile target).
The RIO had fired a couple at drones and scored direct hits. Both
seemed absolutely convinced that it would perform well in combat.
Especially for the task it was designed for: shooting down waves of
Soviet bombers approaching a carrier task force.
Still they admitted the chances for a Phoenix ever getting a combat
kill are going down because of the world situation. I asked them if
they thought the Phoenix would have gotten kills in Desert Storm if
the Air Force had provided the Navy with better AWACS and IFF info,
but they declined to answer (with smiles on their faces).
Greg
Ed Nirel
A very long time ago I had heard a story that, in Reader's Digest
version, told of the disabling of Iran's Phoenix inventory, making them
as effective as a Zuni. Has anyone else heard this story?
Brian Varine
On 12 Dec 1996, Agtabby wrote:
> Monday (I think) in the "Wall Street Journal" there was an artical on
> companies competing for the next heat seeker missle contract. This
> artical claimed that in mock combat the US planes were shot down most of
> the time by other planes, if they carried the Russian AA-11 Archer heat
> seeker. supposedly it can turn tighter, etc.
>
> Any truth to this?
Oh yes. The AA-11 has better off-borsight (up to 90 deg) capability,
thrust vectoring, and a superior seeker. Supposedly the seeker is so
narrow it won't even see flares. The best way to defeat it is to shoot
the plane before you get close in. The MiG's helmet display allows it to
fire at those wild offbore sight targets. I'm not sure if they've ever
demonstrated it though (anyone?). The AA-10 isn't a bad weapon weapon
either. If AMRAAM wasn't around, there could be a stalemate of sorts in
the missile arena.
BUFFIRN
The short answer is yes! The Archer has vectored thrust along with the
normal fins giving it lots of maneuverability. It also has a wide field
of view. Add to that the helemt mounted site in the MiG-29 and the Su-27
and you have a tough combination to beat close in. The best way to deal
with this weapon is to kill the bad guy at long range before he can shot
you with the Archer.
Jim Williams
Crusty old BUFF guy
"I speak for no one!"
Manuel Almazan
Wonginator <lel...@scicontech.com> wrote:
>Does anyone know if there's ever been a confirmed air-to-air combat kill
>with an AIM-54 Phoenix missile? Statistically, this missile is faster
>and has a longer range than any other air-to-air missile (don't know
>anything about its counter-ECM abilities), but I've heard it's extremely
>expensive ($1 million per), it only fires from an F-14, and early models
>had to be dropped into the ocean before an F-14 could land because it
>was too heavy or something like that.
>
>missile?
>Any comments are greatly appreciated.
>
There are no A-A kills with the AIM-54, all the published data came from
a carefully controlled test firings of the missile back in the early
70's.
The Manufacturer claims an 80% kill ratio, maybe in their dreams.
Raytheyon claims the same hit ratio for their AIM-7 but during the Gulf
War it was more like 20%, and most of these were against non evading
aircraft.
Paul Tomblin
It was an episode of JAG, and was about as believable as any other episode of
JAG.
--
Paul Tomblin, PP-ASEL _|_ Rochester Flying Club web page:
____/___\____ http://www.servtech.com/public/
___________[o0o]___________ ptomblin/rfc.html
ptom...@xcski.com O O O
Dave Kohli
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:38:20 -0900, Ed Nirel <e...@micronet.net> wrote:
>A very long time ago I had heard a story that, in Reader's Digest
>version, told of the disabling of Iran's Phoenix inventory, making them
>as effective as a Zuni. Has anyone else heard this story?
Here's the start, there are legends of the US doctoring weapons that
they sell so called fringe allies, giving them the ability to disable
weapons and radars should they ever be used against them. So called
"Shanghai Surprise"????
Ed Nirel
after the Shah fell, so the JAG thing is just a coincidence (I saw the
episode). The story that I heard, I can't remember the source, I was
only twelve when I heard it, involved direct, mechanical disabling of
the weapon system, i.e. removing a key component. This may have been
done by an Iranian loyal to the Shah or the West. I'll ask around.
David Lesher
More important, Iran lost the support structure needed to keep such
complex birds going. ISTR one vital part was the computer that told
you what part when where and when. I doubt that a -14 comes with one
easy-to-read 1" thick Fine Manual like my Datsun...
I heard a likely UL story of a sorte against Iraq where the flight
lead used hand signals to direct his wingman -- no working radios!
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Donny CHAN
In article <wb8fozE2...@netcom.com>,
wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote:
]I heard a likely UL story of a sorte against Iraq where the flight
]lead used hand signals to direct his wingman -- no working radios!
Could be EMCON and radio silence?
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| University of Toronto Mechanical Engineering 9T3+1 ERTW |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| La Salle (HK) Old Boys Electronic Network |
| http://www.glink.net.hk/~lasalle/ |
| |
| "FIDES ET OPERA" - La Salle College motto |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Jeff Crowell
RedLight1 (redl...@aol.com) wrote:
: From what I've learned, the Archer is much better than the AIM-9. It has
Any verified combat use? If not, why not go with what ya know?
Jeff
--
YOU KNOW YOU'RE A REDNECK IF...
Your family tree doesn't branch.
Alexei Gretchikhine
On 16 Dec 1996, Jeff Crowell wrote:
> RedLight1 (redl...@aol.com) wrote:
> : From what I've learned, the Archer is much better than the AIM-9. It ha=
s
> : thrust-vectoring, so it can turn tighter. It also has an excellent
> : 'off-boresight' launch capability. To top it off, the Archer has a bett=
er
> : range than the Sidewinder. Supposedly, it is one of the most capable IR
> : missiles ever built!
>=20
>=20
> Any verified combat use? If not, why not go with what ya know?
>=20
I guess same applies to all-mighty AIM-54, doesn=B4t it?
_____________________ _________________________________________
Alexei GRETCHIKHINE agr...@opie.bgsu.edu
Avekcen~ LPEhNXNH sed quando submoventa erit ignorantia
Russian Aviation Page http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAP.html
_____________________ _________________________________________
Jeff Crowell
: Ed Nirel said:
: >A very long time ago I had heard a story that, in Reader's Digest
: >version, told of the disabling of Iran's Phoenix inventory, making them
: >as effective as a Zuni. Has anyone else heard this story?
Paul Tomblin wrote:
: It was an episode of JAG, and was about as believable as any other
: episode of JAG.
Actually, someone on this newsgroup posted a year or so back, claiming
personal knowlege. Something about a Chief boarding the Last Plane Out
bearing a gym bag full of a certain circuit board which rendered the
weapons subsystem inop.
Whether Iran was able to get stuff off the black market or not, and
get back in the missile business, or if the above ever happened at all,
hellidunno.
I do know for a fact that AWG-9s were detected during the Iran-Iraq
unpleasantness. I saw, on radar, F-14s close enough to Iraqi a/c for the
Tomcat to fire and they did not do so. Why not, if they could have?
Iranian F-14s were basically used as mini-AWACS planes.
Jeff
--
#######################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# BLD Quality Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
#######################################################
The third eye does not require corrective lenses.
Joe Barrington
Jeff Crowell wrote:
>
> : Ed Nirel said:
> : >A very long time ago I had heard a story that, in Reader's Digest
> : >version, told of the disabling of Iran's Phoenix inventory, making them
> : >as effective as a Zuni. Has anyone else heard this story?
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
> : It was an episode of JAG, and was about as believable as any other
> : episode of JAG.
>
> Actually, someone on this newsgroup posted a year or so back, claiming
> personal knowlege. Something about a Chief boarding the Last Plane Out
> bearing a gym bag full of a certain circuit board which rendered the
> weapons subsystem inop.
>
> Whether Iran was able to get stuff off the black market or not, and
> get back in the missile business, or if the above ever happened at all,
> hellidunno.
>
> I do know for a fact that AWG-9s were detected during the Iran-Iraq
> unpleasantness. I saw, on radar, F-14s close enough to Iraqi a/c for the
> Tomcat to fire and they did not do so. Why not, if they could have?
> Iranian F-14s were basically used as mini-AWACS planes.
>
> Jeff
A friend of mine was stationed back in good ol' Iran. He was on the
second(?) to last plane out. The "story" about the cheif is VERY credible.
JB
Ken Koller
On 11 Dec 1996, Andrew Toppan wrote:
> Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
> > Does anyone know if there's ever been a confirmed air-to-air combat kill
> > with an AIM-54 Phoenix missile?
>
> Iran has killed some of Iraq's air farce with it.
>
> > but I've heard it's extremely expensive ($1 million per),
>
> I think it's around $500,000.
>
> > it only fires from an F-14,
>
> True.
Before there ever was a F-14, the AIM-54 was fired from the #3 F-111B,
> > and early models
> > had to be dropped into the ocean before an F-14 could land because it
> > was too heavy or something like that.
>
> Rubbish. The early versions of the Phoenix weigh no more than later
> versions.
>
> Now, the F-14A does have some landing weight restrictions (I think); a
> heavily loaded aircraft might have to dump some stuff to get down to that
> weight. But fuel and other ordnance would be dumped before AIM-54s. The
> specific version of the AIM-54 is not relevant at all.
Landing on the boat with 6 AIM-54s is pushing the limits on the landing
load and is rarely done. Fully loaded with 6 Phoenixes, the F-14 weighs
69,000lbs, the max load for the a/c is 74,349lbs. The plane weighs 39k
lbs empty. I don't have the specifics for the maximum carrier landing
wieght though. Each AIM-54 weighs roughly 1,000lbs each (985lbs), so with
*no* fuel on board, and loaded with 6 AIM-54s, you're looking at 45,000
pounds.
Ken Koller
*************************************************************************
* Fire/Rescue/EMS Photography *
* http://www.islandnet.com/~waynej/Ken_Koller/fireline.html *
* kko...@adnetsol.com *
* *
* "They were breaking outside, sudden rise in the tide, *
* Then out of the northern sky comes a sled, *
* It lands on a swell, guess who's inside? *
* St Nick and his elves, wetsuits off the shelves *
* It's the one day of year they get the waves to themselves." *
* -- The Raddudes "Christmas in Malibu" *
*************************************************************************
au...@imap2.asu.edu
: Actually, someone on this newsgroup posted a year or so back, claiming
: personal knowlege. Something about a Chief boarding the Last Plane Out
: bearing a gym bag full of a certain circuit board which rendered the
: weapons subsystem inop.
Probably a good dose of military mythology mixed in with some
reality. As americans fled Iran following the revolution some did indeed
damage/destroy gear, for a number of reasons. In some cases companies,
thinking that they weren't going to get paid, figured they might as well
take their pound of flesh on their way out. Sometimes it was just
personal animosity or a reflection of the chaos of the time/place, i.e.
"Hey, no one is looking. Let's have some fun smashing stuff!"
I haven't seen any authorative data on the Phoenix missile system
per se, but it probably follows the pattern. I am very dubious of *any*
story that originates with a Chief :-), and most Iranian support came
from contract workers, there were relatively few active duty or actual US
government employees involved in supporting the Iranians (as the Besher
fiasco amply demonstrated). Likewise, the stocks were somewhat split etc.
etc. but someone certainly might have disabled at least a portion of them.
: I do know for a fact that AWG-9s were detected during the Iran-Iraq
: unpleasantness. I saw, on radar, F-14s close enough to Iraqi a/c for the
: Tomcat to fire and they did not do so. Why not, if they could have?
: Iranian F-14s were basically used as mini-AWACS planes.
Early on in the Iran-Iraq war there was some AWG-9 activity, but
it winked out in a fairly big hurry. It is a very maintenance intensive
system, both in terms of personell and parts, and the world market wasn't
exactly flooded with ample supplies of either. by the late 80s the F-14s
were flying almost inevitably on visual, a daylight only plane. It
wouldn't particularly surprise me to learn that sometimes they didn't
even have working radios. There were some lean years for the Iranian
AF. Fortunately for them, just being seen was enough to chase off most
Iraqi attacks.
regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J Forsberg at au...@imap2.asu.edu Wizard 87-01
Stephen Berlinsky
Alexander Pavloff wrote:
>
Stuff Snipped
> (That would be a wierd scene. Chief walking up to every Tomcat in a row,
> opening up a panel, removing a board, and repeating while Iranians stare at
> him).
That assumes, of course, that the boards were installed in the aircraft
all the time.
Steve
Kristan Roberge
Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
>
> On 11 Dec 1996, Andrew Toppan wrote:
>
> > Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
>
> >
> > True.
>
> Before there ever was a F-14, the AIM-54 was fired from the #3 F-111B,
And before that it was developed for, and fired from the YF-12A.
Andrew Toppan
Kristan Roberge reshaped the electrons to say:
> And before that it was developed for, and fired from the YF-12A.
Not. The YF-12 weapon was the AIM-47, not the AIM-54.
---
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- **NOTE NEW WEB SITE URLs**
Rail, Sea and Air InfoPages and FAQ Archive (Military & TC FAQs)
[http://www.membrane.com/~elmer/] mirror [http://www.announce.com/~elmer/]
If Yoda so strong in force is, why words in right order he cannot put?
carroll dalton
In <Pine.PMDF.3.91.961217...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> Alexei
Well the problem is there's no way to know that if you fire that
Russian missile that it will WORK. After all russians don't exactly
have the best quality contorl in the world.
Yama
Alexei Gretchikhine wrote:
>
> On 16 Dec 1996, Jeff Crowell wrote:
>
> > RedLight1 (redl...@aol.com) wrote:
> > : thrust-vectoring, so it can turn tighter. It also has an excellent
> > : range than the Sidewinder. Supposedly, it is one of the most capable IR
> > : missiles ever built!
> >
> >
> >
>
Of course not. It's US missile!
D. Scott Ferrin
On 18 Dec 1996 18:04:31 GMT, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
>Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Dec 1996, Andrew Toppan wrote:
>>
>> > Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
>>
>> > > it only fires from an F-14,
>> >
>> > True.
>>
>> Before there ever was a F-14, the AIM-54 was fired from the #3 F-111B,
>
>And before that it was developed for, and fired from the YF-12A.
>
>
Uh...no. That was the AIM-47 Falcon. Mach 6 75-100 mile range IR
terminal homing and a nuke on the end.
D. Scott Ferrin
Chris Douglas
Kristan Roberge wrote:
>
> Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11 Dec 1996, Andrew Toppan wrote:
> >
> > > Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
> >
> > > > it only fires from an F-14,
> > >
> > > True.
> >
> > Before there ever was a F-14, the AIM-54 was fired from the #3 F-111B,
>
> And before that it was developed for, and fired from the YF-12A.
No, it wasn't. I believe that missile was designed AIM-47. Phoenix
was inspired/derived from it, but is not the same system.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Douglas - cdou...@origin.ea.com
Production Designer/Animator - Origin Systems, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The freedom of the marketplace is not merely the best guarantor of our
prosperity. It is the chief guarantor of our rights, and a government
that seizes control of the economy for the good of the people ends up
seizing control of the people for the good of the economy." --Bob Dole
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marko Honkanen
> Well the problem is there's no way to know that if you fire that
> Russian missile that it will WORK. After all russians don't exactly
> have the best quality contorl in the world.
Yeah, like the US Patriot or HAARP which both work OK, right?
Marko
...I say I'm dead...and I move --- AMIGA
Bob Keeter
sfe...@axxis.com (D. Scott Ferrin) wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1996 18:04:31 GMT, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
>
>>Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11 Dec 1996, Andrew Toppan wrote:
>>>
>>> > Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
>>>
>>> > > it only fires from an F-14,
>>> >
>>> > True.
>>>
>>> Before there ever was a F-14, the AIM-54 was fired from the #3 F-111B,
>>
>>And before that it was developed for, and fired from the YF-12A.
>>
>>
>
>terminal homing and a nuke on the end.
>
Something shakey here! The AIM-4a/b/e was a radar guided AAM while
the AIM-4c/d/f was an IR homing version carried on several of the
"Century Series" fighters (F-102, F-101, F-106) and were both called
"Falcon"! They were also called "Worthless" by anybody who had the
experience of firing them at airborne targets because of their very
ineffective warheads! The only nuke-tipped AAM that I know of in
the US inventory was the unguided AIR-2G Genie! With that much
"bang" guidance is somewhat overkill (at least against the
formations of Bear's that this was designed for!).
Anybody got better info? I had also heard that the Phoenix had a
checkered set of predecessors INCLUDING the missiles intended for
the naval F-111B and the YF-12A. What say you, gurus?
Regards
bk
Niels Stchedroff
I seem to recall the AIM-47 being called "Super Falcon". Certainly, it
is/was very different form the AIM-4. As to a nuke warhead, this may have
been planned: the AIM-47 was never deployed. However the combination of
semi-active radar/infared homing was apparently accurate enough to get
kills with a conventional warhead.
pau...@digital.net
> Niels Stchedroff <N.Stc...@PROFS.ISCL1.silon.simis.com> writes:
> Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> >sfe...@axxis.com (D. Scott Ferrin) wrote:
> >>On 18 Dec 1996 18:04:31 GMT, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
> >>>> Before there ever was a F-14, the AIM-54 was fired from the #3
F-111B,
Actually, development of the AWG9/AIM54 started in the fifties, targeted
for the USN's Missileer subsonic patrol interceptor.
The Misssileer is now almost forgotten but in addition to the AWG9 and
Phoenix, the TF30 development was started for it.
The Navy had the notion that flight performance could be put in the
missile and the aircraft could be optimized for range, time on station
and load carrying ability. The result was an aircraft with flight
performance rather like an A6, carrying lots of missiles and fuel.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice Doggy"
while searching for a rock.
-------------------------------------
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Donny CHAN
In article <59d1l3$d...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>,
Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
]Something shakey here! The AIM-4a/b/e was a radar guided AAM while
]the AIM-4c/d/f was an IR homing version carried on several of the
]"Century Series" fighters (F-102, F-101, F-106) and were both called
]"Falcon"! They were also called "Worthless" by anybody who had the
Isn't the Maverick AGM derived from the Falcon AAM?
Ken Koller
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
OK, this thing has got to be screwy becuase it continues to show things
that someone else wrote as me.
> On 18 Dec 1996 18:04:31 GMT, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
^^ Ok there's two thingys here showing stuff I wrote, but I wrote
everything like this: > >>
> >>
> >> On 11 Dec 1996, Andrew Toppan wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wonginator reshaped the electrons to say:
> >>
> >> > > it only fires from an F-14,
> >> >
> >> > True. <- Andrew wrote this
> >>
> >> Before there ever was a F-14, the AIM-54 was fired from the #3 F-111B,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wrote this.
> >And before that it was developed for, and fired from the YF-12A.
I DID NOT write this, although it shows that I did.
> Uh...no. That was the AIM-47 Falcon. Mach 6 75-100 mile range IR
> terminal homing and a nuke on the end.
Bob Keeter
crs...@inforamp.net (Donny CHAN) wrote:
>In article <59d1l3$d...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>,
> Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>]Something shakey here! The AIM-4a/b/e was a radar guided AAM while
>]the AIM-4c/d/f was an IR homing version carried on several of the
>]"Century Series" fighters (F-102, F-101, F-106) and were both called
>]"Falcon"! They were also called "Worthless" by anybody who had the
>
>Isn't the Maverick AGM derived from the Falcon AAM?
>
Dont think so! Dont have my specs for either handy, but I
would be VERY surprised if they shared more than the fact
that both were missiles! IIRC, the Falcon had a somewhat
similar sillouette but can not see how much else could
be related.
Regards
bk
Ken Koller
On 18 Dec 1996, Alexander Pavloff wrote:
> > > Actually, someone on this newsgroup posted a year or so back, claiming
> > > personal knowlege. Something about a Chief boarding the Last Plane Out
> > > bearing a gym bag full of a certain circuit board which rendered the
> > > weapons subsystem inop.
> >
> > A friend of mine was stationed back in good ol' Iran. He was on the
> > second(?) to last plane out. The "story" about the cheif is VERY
> credible.
>
> One circuit board? For the entire fleet of F-14s? I'm sorta confused
> now... or did he pull the thing outta all 70+ Tomcats?
There were only about 50 Tomcats actually delivered to Iran before the
fall of the Shah. They never recieved thier full order.
Paul Koshevoy
lou...@ix.netcom.com(carroll dalton ) wrote:
> Well the problem is there's no way to know that if you fire that
>Russian missile that it will WORK. After all russians don't exactly
>have the best quality contorl in the world.
That is nothing more than your opinion. It would be nice to hear some
examples in greater detail.
Paul
Donny CHAN
In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.961221...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com>,
Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
]> One circuit board? For the entire fleet of F-14s? I'm sorta confused
]> now... or did he pull the thing outta all 70+ Tomcats?
]
]There were only about 50 Tomcats actually delivered to Iran before the
]fall of the Shah. They never recieved thier full order.
AFAIK, Iran got one fewer than the 70+ F-14s they ordered.
José Herculano
> There were only about 50 Tomcats actually delivered to Iran before the
> fall of the Shah. They never recieved thier full order.
They got 79 Tomcats.
--
José Herculano
vfx
crs...@inforamp.net (Donny CHAN) wrote:
>>Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
>>
>>There were only about 50 Tomcats actually delivered to Iran before the
>>fall of the Shah. They never recieved thier full order.
>
>AFAIK, Iran got one fewer than the 70+ F-14s they ordered.
Eighty F-14s were ordered by Iran, but only 79 were delivered before
the downfall of the Shah.
_________________________________________________________________________
| James C. Kao | v...@ix.netcom.com | http://www.pantless.com/~vfx |
D. Scott Ferrin
>Something shakey here! The AIM-4a/b/e was a radar guided AAM while
>the AIM-4c/d/f was an IR homing version carried on several of the
>"Century Series" fighters (F-102, F-101, F-106) and were both called
>"Falcon"! They were also called "Worthless" by anybody who had the
>experience of firing them at airborne targets because of their very
>ineffective warheads! The only nuke-tipped AAM that I know of in
>the US inventory was the unguided AIR-2G Genie! With that much
>"bang" guidance is somewhat overkill (at least against the
>formations of Bear's that this was designed for!).
>
>Anybody got better info? I had also heard that the Phoenix had a
>checkered set of predecessors INCLUDING the missiles intended for
>the naval F-111B and the YF-12A. What say you, gurus?
The AIM-47 looked somewhat like a streamlined Phoenix missile. The
strakes went almost to the nose of the missile and the fins in back
were not squared off. The outside edge had the same angle as the
strake. It also was test fired from the YF-12A against targets from
100 ft to 100,000 ft with a 90% success rate.
Hughes has designed several missiles with the same basic configuration
(Maverick , Phoenix, Falcon family etc.) however the AIM-47 is (was)
about as similar to the
rest of the Falcon family and the Phoenix as the Phoenix is to the
Maverick.
Phoenix AIM-47 Falcon
Solid motor Liquid fuel (storable)
Mach 5 Mach 6+
Semi-active / Active homing Semi-active / Infrared
homing
132 lb HE warhead 75lb nuclear (W-42)
125 mile range 75 - 100 mile range
I used to have the dimensions somewhere but who knows where they are.
I've also seen a picture of an AIM-54 and AIM-47 on stands pointing
towards each other in a vee for display purposes.
I agree, the rest of the Falcon family was useless but the AIM-47 had
only the name in common with the rest of them.
See ya,
Scott Ferrin
p.s. The AIM-26A and B also had nuclear warheads (W-54) and were used
on the F-102 and F-106. They were also called Falcons. The only thing
that made them deadly was that they were guided (IR) AND they had a
nuclear warhead. However they only had about a 7 mile range so it's
probably good they were never used.
I'm pretty sure the difference between the A and the B model was
that one of them had a conventional warhead. I have seen pictures of
SAAB J-35 Drakens with two of them mounted on the belly.
Urban Fredriksson
In article <59fia7$n...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>,
Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>crs...@inforamp.net (Donny CHAN) wrote:
>>Isn't the Maverick AGM derived from the Falcon AAM?
>Dont think so! Dont have my specs for either handy, but I
>would be VERY surprised if they shared more than the fact
>that both were missiles! IIRC, the Falcon had a somewhat
>similar sillouette but can not see how much else could
>be related.
The aerodynamic configurations are very similar, which I
think is not a coincidence, but intentional in order to
make development easier.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se
Military aviation -> http://www.kd.qd.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Weekly news, the rec.aviation.military FAQ.
Latest update (Dec 8:th): Photos from Swedish AF airshow 1976
Sue Thing
>lou...@ix.netcom.com(carroll dalton ) wrote:
I spent 8 months in the fUSSR. I've seen Soviet manufacturing facilities, and
quality control was _not_ on the top of the list of priorities. As late as
1995, it was difficult if not impossible to obtain batteries, working
fluorescent light tubes, or ballpoint pens that lasted more than a few hours
(either the ink was dried in the tube, or it all squirted out at once). I used
to own a "set" of production run Soviet glassware: no two pieces were alike.
It appears that problems with the infrastructure have a negative impact on
quality control and materiel. My experience indicates that sufficient
quantities of *quality* electronics and motivated personnel are difficult to
obtain. The best of everything seems often to be diverted for personal use;
the mindset being "all of this belongs to the people, and I'm the people, so
why shouldn't I have it?"
I've heard -- but don't have specs -- that Soviet A/A IR missiles have a
smaller operational envelope than Sidewinders.
Sue
------------------------------------------
Sue Thing plbu...@mail.goodnet.com
Those who do not learn from history
are doomed to repeat it next semester.
------------------------------------------
Corsair
>Uh...no. That was the AIM-47 Falcon. Mach 6 75-100 mile range IR
>terminal homing and a nuke on the end.
I thought only the Genie had the nuke warhead.
Corsair
__________________________________________________________
Web CAG of The Unofficial "Jolly Rogers" Site
http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/mdonalds/www/home.htm
__________________________________________________________
CAG of the "VF-84 Jolly Rogers" Simulation Squadron
__________________________________________________________
Have a "Jolly" Holiday Season
__________________________________________________________
Alexei Doubinski
Ehhr... Where have you been? USSR? In late 1995? Wasn't it 1985?
It was rather strange for me to read your points about battaries or
ballpens - or probably my time perception is slightly different?
Still, if you were somewhere in province, there are lots of Chineese
goodies (including those battaries) and personally I read "Made in China"
as a death mark, or "No buy" sign. Moscow gets rid of this, swithing to
domestic or European stuff.
Regards,
--
Alexei Doubinski (d...@rncb.ru)
Bob Keeter
mdon...@calumet.yorku.ca (Corsair) wrote:
>In article <32b89cfd...@news.axxis.com> sfe...@axxis.com (D. Scott Ferrin) writes:
>
>>Uh...no. That was the AIM-47 Falcon. Mach 6 75-100 mile range IR
>>terminal homing and a nuke on the end.
>
>I thought only the Genie had the nuke warhead.
>
>
>
>
>Corsair
Ive looked in every reference I could find and the ONLY air-to-air nuke that
I could find was the Genie (at least out of the US inventory)! The MiG-25
and probably a few others on the opposite side of the fence supposedly had
a nuke option, BUT can find any other US equivalients even proposed.
Not saying that there aint others, but I can not find them! Anybody got
a credible reference for AIM-47 "Falcons" with nuke tips?
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
plbu...@mail.goodnet.com (Sue Thing) wrote:
>In article <59i3vj$5...@news.cc.utah.edu> P.Kos...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Koshevoy) writes:
>
>
>I spent 8 months in the fUSSR. I've seen Soviet manufacturing facilities, and
>quality control was _not_ on the top of the list of priorities. As late as
>1995, it was difficult if not impossible to obtain batteries, working
>fluorescent light tubes, or ballpoint pens that lasted more than a few hours
>(either the ink was dried in the tube, or it all squirted out at once). I used
>to own a "set" of production run Soviet glassware: no two pieces were alike.
>It appears that problems with the infrastructure have a negative impact on
>quality control and materiel. My experience indicates that sufficient
>quantities of *quality* electronics and motivated personnel are difficult to
>obtain. The best of everything seems often to be diverted for personal use;
>the mindset being "all of this belongs to the people, and I'm the people, so
>why shouldn't I have it?"
>
>I've heard -- but don't have specs -- that Soviet A/A IR missiles have a
>smaller operational envelope than Sidewinders.
>
>Sue
>
In general, I tend not to disagree with people who have "been there", but
I would ask that you not make generalizations about Russian military (and
aerospace) hardware based on their consumer comodities. It dont quite
work that way! IF we assume as a society that the Russian nation is
incapable of making a battery that works in your walkman, is it a safe
assumption that their aerospace equipment (and particularly their weapons)
are equally substandard? Remember the on-going dogfight on the list over
the superiority of SU-27/MiG-29 etc?
If you are by any chance one of the militaristic, gun-loving owners of an
SKS, you will be totally unimpressed with the "finish" on the outside of the
receiver and the stock. Until you look down the bore and see a finely finished
hard-chromed bore. Until you realize that practically any ammunition that
you can chamber will work just fine with no jams or malfunctions (unless it
is so rotten that it simply will not fire!).
They have for years lived under what amounted to a full-up wartime economy
building weapons and have only recently turned to the civilian sector. For
a point of comparison, how available were batteries in the US in 1943?
As for the Archer missiles (and their contemporaries), I think that you will
find that the ONLY comparable missile is the Israeli Python, which is a much
modified and enhanced Sidewinder (better seeker, larger motor, longer range,
high off-axis, more maneuverability, etc, etc, etc). What the actual QC is
on the Archers, I can only guess. Betting on Russian weapons not working
at least up to the expected limits is VERY BAD juju! 8-)
Regards
bk
EGELSONE
BK Wrote:
> Betting on Russian weapons not working
>at least up to the expected limits is VERY BAD juju! 8-)
I will only point out that over the past quarter century, there have been
relatively few chances (thank God) to find out which ones worked better.
In the instances that air to air engagements have taken place, the odds
have been that the US/Western technology has prevailed. Off Libya the
Atolls missed the Tomcats.....splash two migs. (2 times) The Isreali AF
shot down something like a zillion (89?) or so Syrian Migs (lost 1 F-16).
DS/DS the Iraqis ran like hell and still lost a ton. Exactly why is not
hard to tell. Superior equipment, superior tactics, training,
pilots...the list goes on.
It continues in tank vs tank, anti armor systems vs anti armor systems.
If you liostened to the propaganda, the Russian built Hind would have torn
up the US helicopter forces in Iraq. The fact is.......when put to the
the test of combat, the Soviet equipment did not perform as advertised. I
don't care that an aircraft can perform the Cobra and has all the cool
gadgets that we see in airshows. DOES IT WORK IN COMBAT? The only way
we can tell you that is to fight it. And when we have fought it WE WON!
Ed
D. Scott Ferrin
On 23 Dec 1996 18:27:10 GMT, Bob Keeter
<b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>Ive looked in every reference I could find and the ONLY air-to-air nuke that
>I could find was the Genie (at least out of the US inventory)! The MiG-25
>and probably a few others on the opposite side of the fence supposedly had
>a nuke option, BUT can find any other US equivalients even proposed.
>
>Not saying that there aint others, but I can not find them! Anybody got
>a credible reference for AIM-47 "Falcons" with nuke tips?
>
>Regards
>bk
>
U. S. Nuclear Weapons ISBN 0-517-56740-7
page 178-179 complete with picture. Also gives details about AIM-26
Falcon.
Actually I've read about both missiles in several books. This stuff
is old news. AIM-47 did not make it into service. AIM-26 did. "Early
production of MK 54 Mod 0 and Mod 2 warheads started at the end of
April 1961. From then until February 1965, between 1000 and 2000
Falcon warheads were manufactured (for the GAR-11/AIM-26A)."..."All
the W-54/Falcon weapons were retired between July 1967 and April
1972."
If you've ever heard of "Skunk Works" by Ben Richards I think it talks
about the AIM-47 in there also. If you've ever heard of "Airpower" or
"Wings" magazine there are a couple excellent back issues about the
SR-71/YF-12A with details about the YF-12A / AIM-47 Falcon
combination. You could also look in any of the older "Jane's" books.
Greg
I saw in a Gunston Book (Name alludes me) that the Aim-47A carried the same
nuke as the Genie and the Aim-47B was high Explosive. I saw this about a
year ago when I was researching the Online Reference for my program. I
could be wrong, so hopefully someone with an accurate reference will
respond.
Gregory
Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote in article
<59mitu$6...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>...
> mdon...@calumet.yorku.ca (Corsair) wrote:
> >In article <32b89cfd...@news.axxis.com> sfe...@axxis.com (D.
Scott Ferrin) writes:
> >
> >>Uh...no. That was the AIM-47 Falcon. Mach 6 75-100 mile range IR
> >>terminal homing and a nuke on the end.
> >
> >I thought only the Genie had the nuke warhead.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Corsair
>
>
D. Scott Ferrin
A quick search of the internet brought the folowing results:
For pictures and video of an AIM-47 being launched from a YF-12A go to
http://www.mrdata.com/~blakef/mystery.html
This is NOT a Phoenix or it's prototype. If you'll notice the longer
strakes and the slight angle on tips of the control fins. The Phoenix
and the AIM-47 are similar in configuration and size but the
differences are obvious.
Another page listing the disposition of all B-58 Hustlers included
this:
55-665 6 YB/RB-58 Snoopy
First flight 9/28/57; first test aircraft delivered to the USAF
on 2/15/58;on 2/15/59 modified to test AN/ASG-18 radar system
and associatedGAR-9/AIM-47 missile for the F108 Rapier and later
the YF12A programs;currently static derelict on the Edwards AFB
photo test range.
In my opinion the YF-12A/AIM-47 combination is the most awesome air
defence system tested. At least that I know about. I doubt that it
would have any trouble at all bringing down an SR-71.
Tim Noble
In article <19961223190...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
snip
> The fact is.......when put to the
> the test of combat, the Soviet equipment did not perform as advertised. I
> don't care that an aircraft can perform the Cobra and has all the cool
> gadgets that we see in airshows. DOES IT WORK IN COMBAT? The only way
> we can tell you that is to fight it. And when we have fought it WE WON!
>
> Ed
If anything, this just reinforces the old saying about pilots mattering
more than the aircraft. Put an Isreali in a MiG and a Syrian in an F-16
and I'll still bet on the Isreali - they are simply better trained. Also,
export versions of Soviet/Russian weapons are considerably "dumbed-down."
Tim
--
Tim Noble
Bend, Oregon USA
t...@bendnet.com
"A noble spirit embiggins the smallest man."
- Jedidiah Springfield
AFA Daniel
<Also, export versions of Soviet/Russian weapons are considerably
<"dumbed-down."
That may have been so in the past but not anymore. The Russians are so
hard for for sales that they have been forced to sell the same stuff that
their forces use.
D
Ken Koller
On 20 Dec 1996 pau...@digital.net wrote:
> > Niels Stchedroff <N.Stc...@PROFS.ISCL1.silon.simis.com> writes:
> > Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> > >sfe...@axxis.com (D. Scott Ferrin) wrote:
> > >>On 18 Dec 1996 18:04:31 GMT, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Ken Koller <kko...@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Before there ever was a F-14, the AIM-54 was fired from the #3
> F-111B,
>
> Actually, development of the AWG9/AIM54 started in the fifties, targeted
> for the USN's Missileer subsonic patrol interceptor.
>
> The Misssileer is now almost forgotten but in addition to the AWG9 and
> Phoenix, the TF30 development was started for it.
>
> The Navy had the notion that flight performance could be put in the
> missile and the aircraft could be optimized for range, time on station
> and load carrying ability. The result was an aircraft with flight
> performance rather like an A6, carrying lots of missiles and fuel.
When you think of it, the optimum launch platform for a AIM-54 would be
something like a modified E-2 or E-3, which can stay a hundred or so miles
away using the powerfull roto-dome to track the targets and just launch
from a nice level flight attitude. Not a lot of need for ACM 100 miles
away.
Jeff Crowell
Alexei Gretchikhine (agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU) wrote:
: I guess same applies to all-mighty AIM-54, doesn't it?
Yup.
Jeff
Kristan Roberge
Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>
> plbu...@mail.goodnet.com (Sue Thing) wrote:
> >I spent 8 months in the fUSSR. I've seen Soviet manufacturing facilities, and
> >quality control was _not_ on the top of the list of priorities. As late as
> >1995, it was difficult if not impossible to obtain batteries, working
> >fluorescent light tube
> work that way! IF we assume as a society that the Russian nation is
> incapable of making a battery that works in your walkman, is it a safe
> assumption that their aerospace equipment (and particularly their weapons)
> are equally substandard? Remember the on-going dogfight on the list over
> the superiority of SU-27/MiG-29 etc?
Gee... I guess that means then that the European community is unable
to make a good aircraft since they don't use the same standard for
VCRs as they do for the North American market (an american/canadian
release VHS tape won't play in a European market VCR for example).
> If you are by any chance one of the militaristic, gun-loving owners of an
> SKS, you will be totally unimpressed with the "finish" on the outside of the
> receiver and the stock. Until you look down the bore and see a finely finished
> hard-chromed bore. Until you realize that practically any ammunition that
> you can chamber will work just fine with no jams or malfunctions (unless it
> is so rotten that it simply will not fire!).
You left out the part where any idiot with a rag and a straight stick
from a tree branch can completely fieldstrip and clean the gun under
the worst operating conditions. Oh, and the fact that they were designed
NOT to blowup in your face when the barrel is clogged with mud and dirt
was a nice bonus.
> As for the Archer missiles (and their contemporaries), I think that you will
> find that the ONLY comparable missile is the Israeli Python, which is a much
> modified and enhanced Sidewinder (better seeker, larger motor, longer range,
> high off-axis, more maneuverability, etc, etc, etc). What the actual QC is
> on the Archers, I can only guess. Betting on Russian weapons not working
> at least up to the expected limits is VERY BAD juju! 8-)
Oh good, someone else remember the Python.
Kristan Roberge
egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
>
> BK Wrote:
> > Betting on Russian weapons not working
> >at least up to the expected limits is VERY BAD juju! 8-)
>
> hard to tell. Superior equipment, superior tactics, training,
> pilots...the list goes on.
>
> It continues in tank vs tank, anti armor systems vs anti armor systems.
> If you liostened to the propaganda, the Russian built Hind would have torn
> up the US helicopter forces in Iraq.
Did you think about what you wrote re: the iraqis in the first part
of your message before writing the bit about the Hinds?!? What makes
you think a Hind was ALLOWED to get anywhere near the US helicopter
forces. As I recall the allied air-cover was splattering just about
everything they could find. Canada even fired off a few sidewinders
and sparrows at the Iraqis.
> the test of combat, the Soviet equipment did not perform as advertised. I
> don't care that an aircraft can perform the Cobra and has all the cool
> gadgets that we see in airshows. DOES IT WORK IN COMBAT? The only way
> we can tell you that is to fight it. And when we have fought it WE WON!
Hmmm, let's see... who got the better training... the american airforce
or the Iraqi airforce...
Oh, and you might try comparing apples and apples. The SU-27s and Mig-29s
that perform at the airshows are NOT the same aircraft NOR flown by
the same pilots that were shot down over Iraq. The airshow aircraft
tend to be the property of the respective design bureaus which use them
as development airframes for further improvements to the production
aircraft and the pilots are so far removed in skill and experience from
those of the Iraqi airforce that you might as well be comparing a
Topgun graduate to someone who just got his pilot's license in a cessna
152. Most of the Iraqi aircraft shot down were old Migs (21, 23, 27)
and Sukhoi's. As I recall most of the Mig-29s were moved to bases in
Northern Iraq to keep them out of reach of allied bombers attacking
airfields or the pilots defected to Iran (which hasn't returned the
aircraft as I recall).
Kristan Roberge
Yes , NOW they are the same aircraft. But the Iraqi airforce during 1990/91
was made up of the old stripped-down export versions of (with the exception
of maybe 30 Mig-29s) several hundred old Mig-21s and Mig-23s. Not
exactly comparable aircraft to the Tornado, F-14, -15, -16, -18s, and
Mirage 2000 aircraft being flown by the allied forces.
jim yanik
In article <59mink$6...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>,
b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us says...
>
>
>
>
>In general, I tend not to disagree with people who have "been there",
but
>I would ask that you not make generalizations about Russian military
(and
>aerospace) hardware based on their consumer comodities. It dont quite
>incapable of making a battery that works in your walkman, is it a safe
>assumption that their aerospace equipment (and particularly their
weapons)
>are equally substandard? Remember the on-going dogfight on the list
over
>the superiority of SU-27/MiG-29 etc?
>
an
>SKS, you will be totally unimpressed with the "finish" on the outside of
th
>e
>receiver and the stock. Until you look down the bore and see a finely
fini
>shed
>hard-chromed bore. Until you realize that practically any ammunition
that
>you can chamber will work just fine with no jams or malfunctions (unless
it
>is so rotten that it simply will not fire!).
>
wonder; Are you one of those who believe firearms should only be in the
hands of the gov't? How do you feel about the 2nd amendment to the
Constitution? I do not own one of these SKS's,but I have no problems with
people who legally own firearms. An SKS may be all a person can
afford,for his defense, or just target practice. How do you feel about
civilian ownership of T-38's? Or any other military aircraft? Maybe those
people are 'militaristic',too.
Jim Yanik,NRA member.
D. Scott Ferrin
>>If you are by any chance one of the militaristic, gun-loving owners of
>an
>>SKS, you will be totally unimpressed with the "finish" on the outside of
>th
>>e
>>receiver and the stock. Until you look down the bore and see a finely
>fini
>>shed
>>hard-chromed bore. Until you realize that practically any ammunition
>that
>>you can chamber will work just fine with no jams or malfunctions (unless
>it
>>is so rotten that it simply will not fire!).
>>
>Bob,your comments about 'militaristic,gun-loving' SKS owners makes me
>wonder; Are you one of those who believe firearms should only be in the
>hands of the gov't? How do you feel about the 2nd amendment to the
>Constitution? I do not own one of these SKS's,but I have no problems with
>people who legally own firearms. An SKS may be all a person can
>afford,for his defense, or just target practice. How do you feel about
>civilian ownership of T-38's? Or any other military aircraft? Maybe those
>people are 'militaristic',too.
>
>Jim Yanik,NRA member.
Get off your soap box. It sounded like sarcasm to me.
BlackBeard
> In article <59mink$6...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>,
> b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us says...
> >
> >
> >
> Bob,your comments about 'militaristic,gun-loving' SKS owners makes me
> wonder; Are you one of those who believe firearms should only be in the
> hands of the gov't? How do you feel about the 2nd amendment to the
> Constitution? I do not own one of these SKS's,but I have no problems with
> people who legally own firearms. An SKS may be all a person can
> afford,for his defense, or just target practice. How do you feel about
> civilian ownership of T-38's? Or any other military aircraft? Maybe those
> people are 'militaristic',too.
>
I understood it to be a compliment.... ;)
I have an SKS, and I love it, but it would be the very last resort for
defense I would use given my 'druthers.
My own Sub would be nice... ;)
BlackBeard
-. .- -..- --.-
De Profundis
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
Eric Gross
> I
>don't care that an aircraft can perform the Cobra and has all the cool
>gadgets that we see in airshows. DOES IT WORK IN COMBAT? The only way
>we can tell you that is to fight it. And when we have fought it WE WON!
While I agree strongly with this statement, I have one caveat:
The dangerous thing is to assume that this will automatically continue to be
the case. The Russians/ex Soviets were producing consistently better
equipment as the years went by, and fielding some impressive technological
achievements. Given that they are in disarray at the moment, but if we let our
defenses lapse and our attention wonder, in ten or twenty years we might be in
for some very rude surprises, from them or any number of possible adversaries.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence . . . .
carroll dalton
In <tn-231296...@ppp205-147.bendnet.com> t...@bendnet.com (Tim
Noble) writes:
>
>In article <19961223190...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> The fact is.......when put to the
>> don't care that an aircraft can perform the Cobra and has all the
cool
>> gadgets that we see in airshows. DOES IT WORK IN COMBAT? The
only way
>> we can tell you that is to fight it. And when we have fought it WE
WON!
>>
>
>If anything, this just reinforces the old saying about pilots
mattering
>more than the aircraft. Put an Isreali in a MiG and a Syrian in an
F-16
>and I'll still bet on the Isreali - they are simply better trained.
>export versions of Soviet/Russian weapons are considerably
"dumbed-down."
>
>
>--
>Tim Noble
>Bend, Oregon USA
>t...@bendnet.com
>
>"A noble spirit embiggins the smallest man."
> - Jedidiah Springfield
>
So are U.S. versions of the F-16!
Bob Keeter
egr...@mailer.fsu.edu (Eric Gross) wrote:
> > I
>>don't care that an aircraft can perform the Cobra and has all the cool
>>gadgets that we see in airshows. DOES IT WORK IN COMBAT? The only way
>>we can tell you that is to fight it. And when we have fought it WE WON!
>
>
>
>The dangerous thing is to assume that this will automatically continue to be
>the case. The Russians/ex Soviets were producing consistently better
>equipment as the years went by, and fielding some impressive technological
>achievements. Given that they are in disarray at the moment, but if we let our
>defenses lapse and our attention wonder, in ten or twenty years we might be in
>for some very rude surprises, from them or any number of possible adversaries.
>
>The price of freedom is eternal vigilence . . . .
>
side!".
While it might be an accepted fact that more MiG-15s were downed in Korea
than F-86s, there is some info just coming to light from several former
Soviet fighter pilots (many of which have "previously unexplained" Hero
of the Soviet Union medals to support their claims), that flew MiG-15s
in Korea who tell a slightly different story (at least for the MiGs that
were flown by their Soviet comrades!). In the hands of an inexperienced,
marginally trained pilot with no significant tactical discipline, the MiGs
allowed even the clearly outclassed straight wing jets that were first
encountered to at least hold their own! When the Russian vets of the
"Great Patriotic War" butted heads against the Allied vets it was a
much more even fight! (Ref: Lt Gen. Georgy Lubov, Capt. Gregori Okhay,
and Col. Boris Abakunov among others). Neither was clearly superior
and neither was "raw meat"! If Russian pilots were flying and commanding
the Iraqi AF in DS, they still would not have had the tactical time
of the MiG-15 pilots, BUT Id suggest the scorecard may have been a
bit less in our favor! On the other hand, if somehow the Israeli AF
had been substituded for the Iraqis, and kept the Iraqi equipment, there
may have been some very sad surprises!
Tigers that have lived their entire lives being fed three meals a day
in the zoo might not fare well if dumped into the jungle, no matter
how sharp their teeth! 8-)
Regards
bk
Sue Thing
In article <32BE55...@rncb.ru> Alexei Doubinski <d...@rncb.ru> writes:
>Sue Thing wrote:
>> I spent 8 months in the fUSSR. I've seen Soviet manufacturing facilities, and
>> quality control was _not_ on the top of the list of priorities. As late as
>> 1995, it was difficult if not impossible to obtain batteries, working
>> fluorescent light tubes, or ballpoint pens that lasted more than a few hours
>> (either the ink was dried in the tube, or it all squirted out at once). I used
>> to own a "set" of production run Soviet glassware: no two pieces were alike.
>> It appears that problems with the infrastructure have a negative impact on
>> quality control and materiel. My experience indicates that sufficient
>> quantities of *quality* electronics and motivated personnel are difficult to
>> obtain. The best of everything seems often to be diverted for personal use;
>> the mindset being "all of this belongs to the people, and I'm the people, so
>> why shouldn't I have it?"
>Ehhr... Where have you been? USSR? In late 1995? Wasn't it 1985?
1975 for me, and 1994 (sorry, typo) for my SO.
>It was rather strange for me to read your points about battaries or
>ballpens - or probably my time perception is slightly different?
>Still, if you were somewhere in province, there are lots of Chineese
>goodies (including those battaries) and personally I read "Made in China"
>as a death mark, or "No buy" sign. Moscow gets rid of this, swithing to
>domestic or European stuff.
No offense intended, but my point was merely that quality control is a
definite second to meeting production goals. The conditions that I noted in
1974-75 don't seem to have changed significantly in 20 years, based on our
technical notes and first-hand observations. Granted, my SO was in Alma Ata,
which is in the provinces, and the infrastructure may have deteriorated from
when it was in its prime. However, there was a real problem in obtaining
reliable supplies of electronic repair parts and equipment for hospitals. A
close friend who once held a high position in the State Bureau of Metrology --
I gather this is similar to NIST here -- confided that in general similar
problems existed for him. He remarked that when he was working on military
projects, it was easier to acquire working electronics; however, it was still
no guarantee. He said that whenever he ordered equipment, if he needed two
items that worked -- such as two oscilloscopes --, he would order four. Two
could be cannibalized ensuring a supply of parts, and if one of them did not
work right out of the box, it was no great loss. And this is working under the
practice of the military getting the best of everything. His observations
coincide with my observations of the Soviet construction industry, and my SO's
observations of the way medical equipment was dealt with at the two most
prestigious hospitals in Kazakhstan. Most of the working electronic medical
equipment was of German, Czech, or Finnish manufacture. A disproportionate
amount of the broken/inoperative equipment was Russian. OTOH, *none* of the
American equipment worked; usually because there were no consumables
(reagents, etc.) to go with it. *That* is an infrastructure problem.
None of this should be construed as a general condemnation of all Russian
hardware. I personally own an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol. They are rugged,
well-designed, and extremely reliable. I also own a 1896 Moisin-Nagat infantry
rifle, that probably served in the Revolution, certainly was used in the Great
Patriotic War (WW2), and likely well into the 1950's. It is still quite
serviceable despite the worst that several generations of soldiers could do to
it. Obviously, Soviet manufacturing plants *can* turn out perfectly good
products. But, as Theodore Sturgeon said, 90% of everything is crap.
Alexei Doubinski
Sue Thing wrote:
>
> In article <32BE55...@rncb.ru> Alexei Doubinski <d...@rncb.ru> writes:
>
> >Sue Thing wrote:
>
> >> I spent 8 months in the fUSSR. I've seen Soviet manufacturing facilities, and
> >> quality control was _not_ on the top of the list of priorities. As late as
> >> 1995, it was difficult if not impossible to obtain batteries, working
> >> fluorescent light tubes, or ballpoint pens that lasted more than a few hours
> >> (either the ink was dried in the tube, or it all squirted out at once). I used
> >> to own a "set" of production run Soviet glassware: no two pieces were alike.
> >> It appears that problems with the infrastructure have a negative impact on
> >> quality control and materiel. My experience indicates that sufficient
> >> quantities of *quality* electronics and motivated personnel are difficult to
> >> obtain. The best of everything seems often to be diverted for personal use;
> >> the mindset being "all of this belongs to the people, and I'm the people, so
> >> why shouldn't I have it?"
>
> >Ehhr... Where have you been? USSR? In late 1995? Wasn't it 1985?
>
> 1975 for me, and 1994 (sorry, typo) for my SO.
I suspected something like that :)
> >It was rather strange for me to read your points about battaries or
> >ballpens - or probably my time perception is slightly different?
> >Still, if you were somewhere in province, there are lots of Chineese
> >goodies (including those battaries) and personally I read "Made in China"
> >as a death mark, or "No buy" sign. Moscow gets rid of this, swithing to
> >domestic or European stuff.
>
> No offense intended, but my point was merely that quality control is a
> definite second to meeting production goals. The conditions that I noted in
> 1974-75 don't seem to have changed significantly in 20 years, based on our
> technical notes and first-hand observations. Granted, my SO was in Alma Ata,
> which is in the provinces,
Which is actually not Russia at all, but newly independent state of
Kazakhstan. Papers state there are some problems because of lack of
qualified workforce as most of them were Russian now hardly pressed to
leave to Russia by locals.
and the infrastructure may have deteriorated from
> when it was in its prime. However, there was a real problem in obtaining
> reliable supplies of electronic repair parts and equipment for hospitals. A
> close friend who once held a high position in the State Bureau of Metrology --
> I gather this is similar to NIST here -- confided that in general similar
> problems existed for him. He remarked that when he was working on military
> projects, it was easier to acquire working electronics; however, it was still
> no guarantee. He said that whenever he ordered equipment, if he needed two
> items that worked -- such as two oscilloscopes --, he would order four. Two
> could be cannibalized ensuring a supply of parts, and if one of them did not
> work right out of the box, it was no great loss. And this is working under the
> practice of the military getting the best of everything.
We tended to do the same with ordering, but the reason was slightly
different: when someone asked for four items, those in charge would say
"It's too much, two would be enoufg". Ordering two you'd get one etc.
Soon even the dumbest would order twice as he/she needs to get enough.
As for the military design, I could say nothing first-handed about
aircraft as I only saw them flying on the show, but artillery pieces I
had dealt with very closely made miracles, working under very tough
conditions, sometimes even lacking oil and anti-recoil liquid!
> His observations
> coincide with my observations of the Soviet construction industry, and my SO's
> observations of the way medical equipment was dealt with at the two most
> prestigious hospitals in Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan. Not Russia 9Jeez, what would you say if someone says
something like "New York, the biggest city in Canada")
> Most of the working electronic medical
> equipment was of German, Czech, or Finnish manufacture. A disproportionate
> amount of the broken/inoperative equipment was Russian. OTOH, *none* of the
> American equipment worked; usually because there were no consumables
> (reagents, etc.) to go with it. *That* is an infrastructure problem.
The very same with Russian equipment. And something else, too.
1. Actually, USSR economy never was human-oriented. "Can this plant make
bombers? No. What about tanks? No again. Hmm, kalashnikovs? No?! It's
useless. OK, let them make TV sets or medical equipment" - something like
tha. Same for funding, R&D, univercity orientation etc.
2. I personally know the people in Moscow Hematology Scientific Center
who made from scratch several medical/scientific pieces of equipment
which were very good and cheap and efficient. Though they were not
persons who sell good - they are scientists and medics. And desigions to
buy Western stuff sometimes are made (or at least were) by people totally
ignorant but greedy for bribes (some of them are in jail now, but
majority enjoy the life). So even with good prototypes there were neuther
time no money to produce them.
3. The whole economy now is in a turmoil of structural reconstraction.
Giving the economic ties between Russia and former USSR republics were
cut rather severely, the consumers of Russian-made medical equipment in
Kazakhstan could easily find themselves withut any tech-support.
> None of this should be construed as a general condemnation of all Russian
> hardware. I personally own an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol. They are rugged,
> well-designed, and extremely reliable.
It's Kalashnikov, after all. Never fired Makarov, though (shame on me).
> I also own a 1896 Moisin-Nagat infantry
> rifle, that probably served in the Revolution, certainly was used in the Great
> Patriotic War (WW2), and likely well into the 1950's. It is still quite
> serviceable despite the worst that several generations of soldiers could do to
> it. Obviously, Soviet manufacturing plants *can* turn out perfectly good
> products. But, as Theodore Sturgeon said, 90% of everything is crap.
>
> Sue
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Sue Thing plbu...@mail.goodnet.com
>
> Those who do not learn from history
> are doomed to repeat it next semester.
> ------------------------------------------
The people who changed the human history are historians.
--
Alexei Doubinski (d...@rncb.ru)
pau...@digital.net
> "Alexander Pavloff" <agp9...@bayou.uh.edu> writes:
>
> > When you think of it, the optimum launch platform for a AIM-54 would be
> > something like a modified E-2 or E-3, which can stay a hundred or so
> miles
> > away using the powerfull roto-dome to track the targets and just launch
> > from a nice level flight attitude. Not a lot of need for ACM 100 miles
> > away.
>
> climb and top speed) make for a LOUSY interceptor. :)
If the missile system has adequate "reach out & touch someone" performance and I think
AIM-54 does, the flight characteristics of the launch platform can be traded for time on
station to give the same number of missiles available X hundred miles from the TF center.
In fact North American Aviation marketed an FB-1 version of the Bone with AWG-9 and 32
AIM54s on board. Not carrier capable, but lots of time on station.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject"
-------------------------------------
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
AFA Daniel
<In the hands of an inexperienced, marginally trained pilot with no
<significant tactical discipline, the MiGs allowed even the clearly
<outclassed straight wing jets that were first encountered to at least
hold <their own!
I wouldn't call at least a 15-1 advantage for the US F-86s as the Mig-15s
holding their own.
The US pilots owned the skies during the Korean War even though the US
politians tied their hands behind their backs. Just because a couple old
ex-Soviet pilots are now just coming forth telling of their "alleged"
victories doesn't change that fact.
D
Ken Koller
On 26 Dec 1996, Alexander Pavloff wrote:
>
> > When you think of it, the optimum launch platform for a AIM-54 would be
> > something like a modified E-2 or E-3, which can stay a hundred or so
> miles
> > away using the powerfull roto-dome to track the targets and just launch
> > from a nice level flight attitude. Not a lot of need for ACM 100 miles
> > away.
>
> But then again, the E-2 and E-3 flight performance (specifally rate of
> climb and top speed) make for a LOUSY interceptor. :)
Not as an interceptor, but as a stand-off platform. Just think about it,
the enemy force sees this big huge blip on thier screen, launch a bunch
of aircraft at it, which are picked up in seconds by the long range
radar, and whammo, scratch the entire flight.
Besides, haven't you seen the new Thunderbirds? They're flying E-3s
nowadays y'know. That knife edge pass is a bitch I hear.
That was humor, in case you didn't notice. ;)
Ken Koller
Emergency Services Photography
http://www.islandnet.com/~waynej/Ken_Koller/fireline.html
"You can tell a lot about a person by how excited they are to do the Macarena."
-- Janeane Garafolo.
Corsair
>> Uh...no. That was the AIM-47 Falcon. Mach 6 75-100 mile range IR
>> terminal homing and a nuke on the end.
There was some confusion as to who wrote this so I won't say who wrote it.
However, Falcon did not carry a nuke warhead. The Genie is the only missile
that I recall that carried a Nuke.
Corsair
__________________________________________________________
Web CAG of The Unofficial "Jolly Rogers" Site
http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/mdonalds/www/home.htm
__________________________________________________________
CAG of the "VF-84 Jolly Rogers" Simulation Squadron
__________________________________________________________
Have a "Jolly" Holiday Season
__________________________________________________________
D. Scott Ferrin
>>> Uh...no. That was the AIM-47 Falcon. Mach 6 75-100 mile range IR
>>> terminal homing and a nuke on the end.
>
>There was some confusion as to who wrote this so I won't say who wrote it.
>However, Falcon did not carry a nuke warhead. The Genie is the only missile
>that I recall that carried a Nuke.
I wrote the above and yes had the AIM-47 gone into service it would
have had a nuclear warhead. The AIM-26A Falcon, which DID go into
service DID carry a nuclear warhead. Just because you can't recall it
doesn't mean it didn't happen. Go through a read the rest of this
thread and the one or two others that discuss it. I give my sources
and a few more details.
Scott Ferrin
Martin Sheffield
The Genie gave a hell of a flame after being fired! I remember seeing a
photograph of a Voodoo firing one, it looked impressive. The Canadian
Gvt had some, but always denied having nukes fitted to them.
go...@imperium.net
afad...@aol.com (AFA Daniel) wrote:
>D
yea you are all probably right about "tecnologically superior '
being better. However what about the t-34 tank ? I think it
was Russion and technilogically inferior to the german
panzers that it beat up on. It was still good in Korea.
In fact the Germans were tecno super in mostly everything
and yet lost. And to Russki's!
so lets get the opinons of some pilots;
Is an F-15 superior to a Mig-29?
But is an F-15 better than two Migs? Or could an F-15 out run
three inferier Mig 29's?
Of course we shouldn't even bring up
Vietnam. Did an M-16 kill better or worse than Ak-47?
All that tecno superiority and yet ......
I quote "Don't be so concerned with this tecnological marvel. The
ability to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to that of
the force." Darth Vader A long time ago
Etienne Le Chevalier
>afad...@aol.com (AFA Daniel) wrote:
>
>In fact the Germans were tecno super in mostly everything
>and yet lost. And to Russki's!
Russians didn't win that war. 1941's winter did...and they had 20 MILLION
victims. Try to compare to US casualties in Vietnam...
Bob Keeter
In some wars, victory is measured in terms of territory conquered, or
casualties inflicted, reparations received or concessions granted.
Ive also heard that the winner of a war can always be determined by the
composition of the war crimes tribunal! The Soviets won (with a hearty
assist from Napoleon's old nemesis as you noted); the casualties suffered
by their military, the partisans and peasants just did not enter into
Stalin's balance sheet!
Regards
bk
Amitabh Dubey
On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Etienne Le Chevalier wrote:
> In article <5ado6b$m...@news.imperium.net>, go...@imperium.net wrote:
>
> >afad...@aol.com (AFA Daniel) wrote:
> >
> >In fact the Germans were tecno super in mostly everything
> >and yet lost. And to Russki's!
>
> Russians didn't win that war. 1941's winter did...and they had 20 MILLION
> victims. Try to compare to US casualties in Vietnam...
More casualties --> higher commitment ---> greater effort
---> greater enemy casualties ---> bigger victory?
Amitabh
Stephen W. Schoene
Ken Koller wrote:
>
> On 26 Dec 1996, Alexander Pavloff wrote:
>
> >
> > > When you think of it, the optimum launch platform for a AIM-54 would be
> > > something like a modified E-2 or E-3, which can stay a hundred or so
> > miles
> > > away using the powerfull roto-dome to track the targets and just launch
> > > from a nice level flight attitude. Not a lot of need for ACM 100 miles
> > > away.
> >
> > But then again, the E-2 and E-3 flight performance (specifally rate of
> > climb and top speed) make for a LOUSY interceptor. :)
>
> Not as an interceptor, but as a stand-off platform. Just think about it,
> the enemy force sees this big huge blip on thier screen, launch a bunch
> of aircraft at it, which are picked up in seconds by the long range
> radar, and whammo, scratch the entire flight.
This isn't exactly a new idea. Back in the late 1950s the Navy considered the
Douglas F-6D Missileer as a fleet air defense fighter. This would have been a
Mach 0.8 fighter with non-afterburning TF-30s and 4-6 hours endurance. It would
have carried up to eight Eagle AAMs and a powerful radar. (The Eagle is an
ancestor of Phoenix with basically similar range.
The Air Force also played with "Project Aerie", a modified C-135 with 24 Eagles.
Ouch!
Neither of these goit very far, partially because a carrier wouldn't have space
for the highly specialized Missileers and the regular fighters (at the time
F-4s) required for strike escort. Also these aircraft could kill at long range
but might not survive real well against an escorted strike once. Finally,
subsonic fighters or "airborne battleships" would be poor interceptors.
Tom Schoene
Paul Koshevoy
e-l...@worldnet.fr (Etienne Le Chevalier) wrote:
>Russians didn't win that war. 1941's winter did...and they had 20 MILLION
>victims. Try to compare to US casualties in Vietnam...
You are asking for trouble.
Germans knew where they were going, they should have dressed better.
They were planning on a fast kill. Russians were able to hold Germans
busy for 4 years, finaly beating them in Berlin. 20 milion victims
were due to Stalin's policy of "cleaning" officer personal from
"enemies of the (soviet) people" . Majority of commanding officers
were not trained up the tasks that war would present them with.
It was General Zhukov - a brilliant man - who lead Soviet Army to
victory. Lucky for everyone he was not killed by Stalin.
Paul
Alexei Doubinski
I should also add that a big part of this 20 mlns were CIVILIANS killed
by Germans. Cities were heavily bombed, Leningrad was blocaded with
people starving to death, 1/4 of Belorussian civilian population was
killed during occupation, let alone henocide against Jews - most victims
of Nazis' "etnic policy" were from Poland and USSR (mostly Ukraine).
War was very cruel over here. You probably remember the Vietnameese
willage of Song-Mi - there were hundreds of willages with the very same
fate. It was a war of survival, something America never have had.
Probably the only close resemblance to it was an Israeli war of
Independence in 1949.
As for winter... I would rather call it a wrong strategic planning, bad
logistics, underestimation of enemy and unanticipated losses. You don't
blame enemy if you ran out of food - you generally blame your failed
support men.
Aftre all, it takes only one look on the map to see that Russia is not
tropical country.
--
Alexei Doubinski (d...@rncb.ru)
Etienne Le Chevalier
In article <32D0B0...@rncb.ru>, Alexei Doubinski <d...@rncb.ru> wrote:
>Paul Koshevoy wrote:
>I should also add that a big part of this 20 mlns were CIVILIANS killed
>by Germans. Cities were heavily bombed, Leningrad was blocaded with
>people starving to death, 1/4 of Belorussian civilian population was
>killed during occupation, let alone henocide against Jews - most victims
>of Nazis' "etnic policy" were from Poland and USSR (mostly Ukraine).
>
>War was very cruel over here. You probably remember the Vietnameese
>willage of Song-Mi - there were hundreds of willages with the very same
>fate. It was a war of survival, something America never have had.
>Probably the only close resemblance to it was an Israeli war of
>Independence in 1949.
>
>As for winter... I would rather call it a wrong strategic planning, bad
>logistics, underestimation of enemy and unanticipated losses. You don't
>blame enemy if you ran out of food - you generally blame your failed
>support men.
>
>Aftre all, it takes only one look on the map to see that Russia is not
>tropical country.
>--
>Alexei Doubinski (d...@rncb.ru)
Totally agree with you, Alexei. That's exactly what I meant. May be I was
a bit sardonic. Sorry if you felt hurt.
oh, btw, I think the name of the vietnamese village was My Lai.
Oleg Zabluda
Etienne Le Chevalier (e-l...@worldnet.fr) wrote:
: Russians didn't win that war. 1941's winter did...and they had 20 MILLION
: victims. Try to compare to US casualties in Vietnam...
It's an extremely common point of view here, in US. Just like back
in Russia the common point of view is that the Americans didn't
help us to win the war at all, due to the negligible losses (compared
to the Russian ones). Both point of view are wrong of course,
because the wars and the losses in the West and in the East had a
very different flavors. Even if we forget about civilian casualties
for a second, what we consider a decisive battles in the East
(Stalingrad, Kursk) involved massive ground forces. The decisive
batles in the West were mostly fought in the air. Strategic bombing
(and the lend lease of course) was the major American contrubution
to the war with the Garmans. This was the clash of economies rather then
the clash of massive troop formations, although economies played just as
big role in Russian-German war of course.
Oleg.
--
Life is a sexually transmitted, 100% lethal disease.
Oleg Zabluda
Etienne Le Chevalier (e-l...@worldnet.fr) wrote:
: Russians didn't win that war. 1941's winter did...and they had 20 MILLION
: victims. Try to compare to US casualties in Vietnam...
BTW, if you want to write a jokes like that, you should really be
sayng 1942 winter, since 1942 is the year the fate of the war
was being decided, and the Russians almost lost. We got lucky
that we got correct intelligence on the German plans and lured
them into a trap near Kursk. The battle still was just a draw, but
it was the last German's chance.
Bacchus
>. The decisive
>batles in the West were mostly fought in the air. Strategic bombing
>(and the lend lease of course) was the major American contrubution
>to the war with the Garmans. This was the clash of economies rather then
>the clash of massive troop formations, although economies played just as
>big role in Russian-German war of course.
>
>--
>Life is a sexually transmitted, 100% lethal disease.
>
The 20 million figure has been disputed, and is belived to be almost
40 million. Of course, this is simply an inturpolation, and not
scientific. Only God knows for sure.
Before sex, life was endless.
Oleg Zabluda
Bacchus (bac...@itis.com) wrote:
: The 20 million figure has been disputed, and is belived to be almost
: 40 million. Of course, this is simply an inturpolation, and not
: scientific. Only God knows for sure.
Original Russian number was around 10 millions. Then it kept growing
every time a new leader came into office. 20 millions is
"Brezhnev's" number. Current official Russian number is 27 million.
Now, even if politicians wanted to honest, there is a huge leeway
in the usual statistics games.
: Before sex, life was endless.
Either Big Crunch or the Second Thermodynamics Law will put an end to it.
Amitabh Dubey
On 10 Jan 1997, Oleg Zabluda wrote:
> Bacchus (bac...@itis.com) wrote:
> : The 20 million figure has been disputed, and is belived to be almost
> : 40 million. Of course, this is simply an inturpolation, and not
> : scientific. Only God knows for sure.
>
> Original Russian number was around 10 millions. Then it kept growing
> every time a new leader came into office. 20 millions is
> "Brezhnev's" number. Current official Russian number is 27 million.
> Now, even if politicians wanted to honest, there is a huge leeway
> in the usual statistics games.
It is utterly misleading to refer to these as "Russian" casualties. IIRC,
Belarus and Ukraine bore the brunt of casualties, especially in terms of
the percentage of population decimated.
Amitabh
Ivan Averintsev
I just want to add to this discussion that big military losses in=20
WWII on russian side were also caused by that strategy which russian=20
commanders used -- and I guess some still do -- which was minimal care=20
of soldier's lives. They preferred to throw thousands of men knowing=20
that even 1% of them won't survive rather then conducting well=20
organized, precise operations with smaller losses, like nazis,=20
americans etc preferred to do. The result was hundreds of villages in=20
russia which population consisted of women ONLY. But still it did work.=20
I think that this war could end in some much more pityful way if USSR=20
weren't involved in it. But still, russians would'nt do anything=20
without allies. Still, the greatest turn in the war happened after the=20
Midway battle, when americans got able to concentrate their efforts on=20
Europe (so-called second front). Thats just my opinion, but it's shared=20
by lots of people I guess.=20
=20
=20
Ivan Averintsev (PooZ)=20
Yama
Ivan Averintsev wrote:
> I think that this war could end in some much more pityful way if USSR
> weren't involved in it. But still, russians would'nt do anything
> without allies. Still, the greatest turn in the war happened after the
> Midway battle, when americans got able to concentrate their efforts on
> Europe (so-called second front). Thats just my opinion, but it's shared
> by lots of people I guess.
There wasn't single turning point in WWII. Instead there were many
debacles at 42/43 that caused Axis to lose- Stalingrad, El Alamein,
Midway, Guadalcanal and Battle of Atlantic. Many of those battles were
not actually alone so decisive but 'symptoms' of the new course of war.
--
'Battle is not over
before the Guard attacks'
-Friedrich der Grosse