READ, very interesting Stuff!!!!!

[Guest Mirage2k]

Rommell: No one ever said the IAF wasn't good. BUT, look at some facts. For the most part, the IAF uses American technology and American tactics to defeat a enemy equipped with old Soviet technology and military ideology. The result is clear: American tech and tactics win. Another thing: despite their success, the IAF has also endured one of the highest casualty rates of any service in the world. A lot of that has to do with the number of times they've fought, of course.

About the Gulf...you said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh and someone mentioned the succes rate in the gulf, hahaha. That's laughable, the U.S could of used old F-105's and still won. The iraqis didn't even try to intercept the u.s bombers, and their radar systme is not all that great.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a couple of things to say about that. 1. Nobody at the time of the Gulf War expected the Iraqis to be pushovers. They had some good, high-tech weapons systems (both Soviet and American in origin), good pilots, a very large army (I think #8 or so in the world at the time...but I'm not sure on that, I'll try to look it up and get more info on the exact numbers), and one of the most complex air defense systems in existence. The fact that the U.S. defeated it easily is beside the point. Nobody expected victory to come as quickly as it did. And your thing about the Iraqis not even trying to down American bombers? Which ones are you talking about? It might be a bit hard to shoot down an F-117 in your MiG...lol. Actually, out of all U.S. airmen, bomber and attack crews suffered the worst casualty rates. A-10 pilots, IIRC, had a devil of a time getting used to flying at 10,000 feet. That altitude restriction, I think, stands as a testament of just how dangerous the U.S. military planners felt the Iraqi air defenses were.

-Andrew

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

The WW2 anti-ship missiles he refers to scored their greatest success in sinking the Italian battleship Roma as the vessel steamed to internment after Italy surrendered to the Allies.

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes it was radio-guided with a little joystick... the plane would hover around out of light aa range and the co-pilot would use a joystick to guide the bomb down to the target ship... i think they sank another one as well besides the roma before the allies started using electronic countermeasures...

andy

[Guest Mirage2k]

Well, I'm back with some numbers, as I had promised! I got them from the "Gulf War Debriefing Book," by Andrew Leyden, at http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/total.html

Total Troop Strength: US: 500,000; Allies: 205,000; Iraq: 545,000

Tanks: US: 1,200; Allies: 1,285; Iraq: 4,200

APCs: US: 2,700; Allies: 1,350; Iraq: 2,800

Artillery: US: 3,000; Allies: 442; Iraq: 3,100

Aircraft: US: 1,800; Allies: 343; Iraq: 550

Helicopters: US: 1,700; Allies: 160; Iraq: 160

The site goes on to describe the Iraqi Air Force as "highly-regarded" and its air defense reaction as "sporadic and undirected, though extremely heavy."

The U.S and allies clearly had a numbers and technology edge over the Iraqis in terms of air power...no doubt about that. Ground forces appear fairly well matched.

-Andrew

[tss]

Marnix wrote:

Maskirova is the art of deception, building decoys and mockups, which the Russians excelled at

The Soviets were also pretty good on hiding their intentions on operational level. Before their attack in Karelia 1944 they sent two or three spy teams with the explicit purpose of getting caught. Of course, the spys themselves didn't know that but it is the only rational explanation for the situation.

Both teams were wearing _German_ uniforms and had the mission of finding out what German units were being transported to Karelian Isthmus. Not finding out whether there were any Germans there, but finding the specific units.

At the time there were no German units and there were no plans to send any, and the Soviet leaders knew it perfectly well. The main idea of the spy missions was to convince Finnish leadership that Soviets feared attack against Leningrad and so they had to be on defence.

Guess what. It worked good enough. Everybody in the division commander level and downwards knew that the Red Army would attack and soon, but the Army Corps level and above thought that there would be many months before Soviets could attack.

- Tommi

[Guest Pillar]

To clear up the airforce thing:

That battle was STRICTLY knife fighting. The stats are correct I beleive, but they are in fact no indication of what the real outcome of a war would be. Medium to Long range fighting with modern aircraft would have put the US F-15 and further technologies ahead.

The F-15 30% statistic is also based on knife fights, not overall encounters.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jgdpz, not exactly true. The US did in fact make an exact copy of the gun to learn how the manufacturing of the weapon made it what it was. They screwed up the calibre or something IIRC, which is what I think Rommel22 meant in his post.

BTW, this sort of thing was not unique. The Germans did the same thing with the Soviet PPSh and the Panzerschreck was a directly improved copy of the US Bazooka. They also made nearly exact copies of the Sten gun towards the end of the war for Volkssturm and the so called Warewolf units. And as many tank guys know, there were very serious discussions at high levels within Germany about making their own T-34s. But national pride and other factors instead lead to the Panther.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-04-2000).]

[Joe Shaw]

OK Rommel, let's take a good look at your "source." The following are direct quotes from the web page you used for your facts:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The whole page began long ago when I wanted a homepage for the "Porcupine Gang". The PG did exist about ten years ago, but it's extinct for at least eight. Nevertheless, in my hobby as author it appears again and again so often that I thought it should have its own homepage as well. And why not? Then, rather spontaneously, I wrote a long long essay on Panzer General 2, with complete solutions to win every battle, and published it on the net.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>About myself, finally. Despite the fact that I often refer to 'us' and the "Waffenkammer Team" there is actually only one person running the Waffenkammer - me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My name is Andreas Seidel, I live near Bonn in Germany, was born in Heidelberg and have travelled rather a lot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now don't get me wrong, this guy is probably a hell of nice guy and probably knows a thing or three, but who is he? We have no idea of his credentials or background or, more importantly, his prejudices and motives. And trust me, a guy who touts his expertise at Panzer General 2 isn't going to get a lot of respect on THIS board ... despite the fact that we've probably all played and enjoyed PG.

So here's the point, by all means read and explore all facets of an issue, but don't take it at face value, especially if it sounds too far off base and especially if it's on the web. Hell Rommel, I could publish a page with all kinds of "facts" and no one could say me nay.

Joe

[V B]

The Japanese had subs with spring loaded recon aircraft. But it was either a one way trip (and/or) the plane would be able to land on the water and restock on the sub itself. But the few subs that acctually used this lost mobility and most of its actions were restricked due to this lack of mobility. And other nations at the time used this same technique. Not much new here.

[Marty]

I have heard and seen many of the orginal comments several times - sort of sounds like the info that used to be provided by the SPI magazine "Strategy and Tactics" every month.

In reference to the Israeli-U.S. bout, it seems to me, like a ghost in the back of my mind, that occurred last year, or so, but rather than USAF, was against F-14's of the U.S. Navy.

The Navy pilots were part of a carrier group in the area and arranged the exercise while they were transiting through. They claimed that the result was because they were operating over Israel at the end of their operational range, so had little loiter time, while the Israelis were near the homeland and could burn fuel in wild maneuvers. The Israelis thought it was sour grapes...

[Guest Rommel22]

Hey

Well Andreas Siedel is a smart guy. You can e-mail him abou this stuff. Ask where he got this from, he is not just a shmuck. I still believe the U.S vs Isreali odds. Well people have their opinoins, but I don't regard the U.S air Force as the best trained in the world.

You guy point out good views on this subject though.

AK#1 AK#1 AK#1

[Joe Shaw]

BTW Rommel, you might be careful who you call a schmuck, (and yes, I know, you didn't actually call him one) the Yiddish term is defined as ... "asshole" I'd been calling people that for years 'till I found out

Joe

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by V B:

The Japanese had subs with spring loaded recon aircraft. But it was either a one way trip (and/or) the plane would be able to land on the water and restock on the sub itself. But the few subs that acctually used this lost mobility and most of its actions were restricked due to this lack of mobility. And other nations at the time used this same technique. Not much new here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What "actions" were restricted by the addition of a hanger? These subs were built as scouts, nothing more. No one ever intended them to go convoy hunting.

On the other hand, had they all been brought together, a strike group of some fifty aircraft could certainly have messed up the canal for a while.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[V B]

First off a sub that was that large lacked the ability to go evasive as comapred to a normal attack sub. Which is what I basically said. And they didnt have 50 air capable subs at any one point during the war and the air craft they carried were not armed for combat most of the time (excluding the light bombers). Notice how many subs the Japanese lost of these classes and tell me that the recon element was worth the cost. Check out this site for any information about the jap navy at the time. Imp. Navy Page

[This message has been edited by V B (edited 06-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by V B (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Rick614]

Those magazines you read while you're standing in line at the grocery store are "interesting stuff" also.

[Darwin]

You guys are harsh.

Thanks for posting all this war related trivia, even if some of it is exagerrated I found it enjoyable

[Zamo]

Regarding "copied" weapons:

The Japanese copied the M1 Garand and fielded it to their some of their naval infantry units. I have also heard stories that the USSR copied the US B-29 after the war down to the serial numbers. Any verificators on that?

[MadGrenadier]

Well, the Tu-4 (think that was it) was a carbon copy of a B-29 that was forced down in the USSR, but as for down to the serial numbers, I dunno. I guess the design bureau *could* have taken the order to 'copy the plan' literally, you never know.....

--Mad

[killmore]

Tu-4 was a copy.

But multiple B-29 were delivered to SU by USA during WW2. So it was not a copy of the one that was forced down. It was a copy of Lend-lease ones.

[Rommel]

Bah a lot of your so called "facts" are nothing more than overstated exagerations. Most people would be willing to show the "proof" that backs up their "facts".

Just for example, I don't know anything about british arms, but if the sa-80 is the STANDARD british assault rifle, i'd be really interested to see where you saw a article that said it only works in a "clean room".

It'd be like saying that just because the u.s. had a prototype 1 wing aircraft "similar to the stealth bomber" in the 50's and 60's, that the u.s had them as a widespread plane in their airforce.

Get some proof to backup your "facts" or the only real fact is that your full of it.

[Viperflier]

Sheesh,

As an Air Ops Officer and having over 2500 hours in F-16's I can honestly say a few of those 'facts' are real klunkers.

I've flown with and against literally dozens of nations within the 'Western' sphere. The ability spread amongst proficient airmen is practically non-measurable. I or any other pilot would be hard pressed to tell if our adversaries were Canadians, Dutch, Belgian, American or Israeli. There is no 'golden' path to fighter pilot perfection (as you'd guess, perfection doesn't even exist), just a lot of hard work and repetition.

Each aircraft varies in its abilities but none of the current 4th generation fighters are quantum leaps better than all its contemporaries. The F-22 will likely change the picture of air combat for the next 50 years (call it a 5th generation platform) since it is more of a revolution in technology versus a gradual evolution (F-16 upgrades).

Merlin

VTANG

[Dittohead]

What about the Flying Monkeys???

[jgdpzr]

Steve,

About the MG42 copy I thought I heard they never completed it, or at least never intended to make it a production weapon. I guess I should have said they never intended to widely produce a copy of the weapon Thanks for the clarification, in any case.

[penubly]

Quote: Visual range was at least twice that of radar range in 1943.

How does this take into account the British use of radar during the Battle of Britain? I have read many accounts of controllers mapping squadrons taking off, climbing to altitude, etc from France and Holland. I thought it was accurate up to about 20-30 miles. Is this a take-off on the movie "On a Clear Day You Can See Forever?" Don't bother, my wife made me watch it.

------------------

Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.

[Bigggie]

Re: Stealth -

Saying that Stealth technology is originally Russian is not completely accurate. The mathamatical formulas that were eventually used to develop stealth tech. were developed by a Russian scientist (I can't remember his name) in the early 20th century. He published formulas on how to calculate light, sound and radio wave refraction based upon different angles of impact. The Russian government did not view this information as having any military significance and never classified the formulas. Many years later, a scientist from the now famous (or infamous, depending on your viewpoint) Skunk Works stumbled upon the formulas and put them to work towards developing the technology.

Just thought I'd add my two cents.

[thomasj]

Actually there is a lot more to the Germans having night vision and stuff than usually known.

The following is from Achtung Panzer website:

German Infrared Night-Vision Devices - Infrarot-Scheinwerfer

In 1936, AEG was ordered to start the development of infrared night-vision devices and in 1939, first successful prototype unit for use with 37mm Pak 35/36 L/45 anti-tank gun was constructed. In autumn of 1942, unit for use with 75mm PaK 40 L/46 anti-tank gun was constucted and was also mounted on Marder II (Sd.Kfz.131).

In mid 1943, first tests with infrared night-vision (Nacht Jager) devices and telescopic rangefinders mounted on Panther started. Two different arrangements / solutions were created and used on Panther tanks.

Solution A - Sperber (Sparrow Hawk) was made up of one 30cm infrared searchlight (with range of 600m) and image converter operated by the commander - FG 1250. From late 1944 to March of 1945, some Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausf G (and other variants) mounted with FG 1250, were succesfully tested. From March to April of 1945, approximately 50 Panthers Ausf G (and other variants) mounted with FG 1250, saw combat service on the Eastern Front and Western Front. Panthers with IR operated with SdKfz.251/20 Uhu (Owl) half-track with 60cm infra-red searchlight and Sd.Kfz.251/21 Falke (Falcon). This solution could be easily mounted on any type of armored fighting vehicle.

Solution B - Second more complicated arrangement / solution was "Biwa" (Bildwandler), which provided driver, gunner and commander with one 30cm infrared searchlight (with range of 600m) and image converter. Various variants of Panthers were converted and mounted with "Biwa". It was reported that tests were successful, but there is very few combat reports from the Eastern or Western Front.

Various units received IR Panthers including 116th Panzer Division (3rd company of 24th Panzer Regiment, Western Front, Summer of 1944), Sixth SS Panzer Army (Hungary, early 1945), Panzer Division Muncheberg and Clausewitz. One combat report is by a veteran of 1st SS Panzer Regiment of 1st SS Panzer Division "LSSAH", who states that few Panthers equipped with infrared night-vision devices possibly from 116th Panzer Division were used in 1944/45 during the Ardennes Offensive. In April of 1945, Panthers equipped with IR equipment (solution joined Panzer Division Clausewitz and in mid April near Uelzen destroyed entire platoon of British Comet cruiser tanks. Also on April 21st of 1945, same Panthers overran an American anti-tank position on the Weser-Elbe Canal.

In addition, it is reported that single unit equipped with Jagdpanthers also received and used infrared night-vision devices.

Crews of infrared night-vision devices mounted vehicles were also armed with MP44 assault rifles fitted with infrared night-vision device - Vampir (Vampire).