Syrian Mig Purchase.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by dan/california:

Thread derailment of the month, for sure. :confused:

Do a search for "unsobil" and "Israel", and you'll find more candidates.

[Homo ferricus]

I don't know who unsobill is, or thinks he is, but he definitely does not speak for Russians, especially myself. And by the way, about those anti-semitic books you mentioned, they were banned because they are SLANDER, and slander is ILLEGAL.

[unsobill]

how nice is to see so many "RUSSIANS" all of the sudden on this forum when i mentioning israel ...

and hey 2 homo Henry Ford's work was NEVER banned thanks God for first amendment - you can go rent it in library and read it.

[ June 29, 2007, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: unsobill ]

[Darius359au]

How does a disscusion about syria buying migs turn into another unsobil jew hating thread?

[dima]

Originally posted by Darius359au:

How does a disscusion about syria buying migs turn into another unsobil jew hating thread?

All that needs to be done - is for moderator to delete his and other unrelated messages and we will continue talking. At least this is how we handle this stuff over at lockon.ru forums.

Locking this topic will accomplish exactly what this guy was aiming for - derail and disrupt the rest of forum members'c discussions

[MikeyD]

Woa!

Not to take Unsobil's side but there's a BIG difference between mocking the government of Israel and "Jew Hating". That's ratcheting up the rhetoric a little too far. The current government of the nation of Israel is not "The Jews", which is a good thing considering the most recent government scandals over there. Lets just wait til something hateful is actually said about the Jewish people before "Jew Hating" is mentioned.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Woa!

Not to take Unsobil's side but there's a BIG difference between mocking the government of Israel and "Jew Hating".

Did you somehow miss him praising Henry Ford for his "The Eternal Jew: The World's Foremost Problem"?

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I think it is finally time to say buh-bye to Unsolbill. I think we've put up with his spewing forth extreme nationalist and anti-semetic rants long enough. Unsolbill has also been given more than one warning in the past by more than one of us, so I don't feel even a tad bit guilty about banning him. Plus, the World Wide Jewish Conspiracy called me up and said if I don't ban Unsolbill now that my bank accounts would be frozen (because they control the banks, don'cha know). Plus, I don't want the press to start bad mouthing my games (because they own the press too).

Steve

[MikeyD]

"Did you somehow miss him praising Henry Ford for his..."

Urp! Yes, I DID miss that. You won me over. There IS a difference be mocking the state of Israel and... and... that.

[ChrisND]

I think I smell the faint hint of roses in the air.

[Battlefront.com]

Dima,

You're missing the point completely. What I'm talking about here has NOTHING to do with Combat Mission at all. Instead it has everything to do with a poorly informed, national zealot who is making claims he can't back up with facts. So let me try again

Unsolbill made a bunch of unsupportable and factually incorrect, not to mention contradictory, remarks about Russia's technology vs. US technology (specific to planes, which have nothing to do with CM:SF worth mentioning). His facts were disputed well enough, which I helped do by providing information that proved his position to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

In the context of Unsobill's off the wall comments I pointed out an interesting poll I heard. And that is Russia is the only country in the world to take a dim view of American technology (though reading the report now I see Turkey and Pakistan also side with Russia). So it would seem that Unsolbill's opinion is consistent with the poll's finding and inconsistent with majority of the rest of the world.

Additionally, I pointed out that the world sees Bush as being a bad guy, including Americans. The world also sees Putin as a bad guy, except for the Russians. That was just a side point I made in the context of Unsolbill's unsupportably extreme nationalistic position.

What does it mean Putin is "bad or good". That's like asking poor if it is good to raise taxes. And like asking rich if it is good to raise taxes. What answers do you expect from different group? In the case of Bush and Putin - bad is really misleading term. Putin is bringing russia back (slowly and who knows how far) to the old days where it has more power and influence. That is good for russians and bad for the rest. So what reaction will you expect?

The same could be said about George Bush, right? He is authoritarian and is trying to bring the US back into control of everything. Difference is Americans agree with the rest of the world... this isn't a good thing.

Personally, I think Russia needed a strong man because the weak men before him were ruining Russia's chances of being a stable, moderately governed country. So yes, I think overall Putin is probably the best realistic possibility for Russia. I also don't have a problem with Russia rearming itself and trying to regain some of its former military strength. That is the right of every nation. So no, I would not want Putin for my president any more than I want George Bush as my president, but I can understand why Russians like Putin compared to what they had before. In Iraq it is often heard said by Iraqis "we would really like to have someone like Saddam back in power, just not as mean." Meaning, the lesser of two evils is a better choice than the worst of two evils (I don't think Putin is evil, that is just a common expression in English).

So you are taking the opinion of some guy (probably in his teen years) who may or may not be russian to reflect opinion of the rest of russians? And you mention some survery? We have a joke in russia. "According to recent survey it appears that 100% or russian population has access to Internet. The survey was conducted on the main web page of Izvestia news agency.

Unsolbill exhibited a certain set of characteristics that happen to be the same as the poll that I just heard about, so no... the POLL is what (supposedly) reflects the rest of Russians. Unsobill is just an example of it. There is a huge difference.

BTW, the polls were conducted by outside group, not Russian controlled institutions. Here is a link to the poll.

Polls are, of course, always subject to flaws. All I was doing was relating Unsobill's opinions with those in the poll. Simple as that.

The reason I am writing all this (as you know I rarely post here at all) is that it doen't really matter what the average Joe thinks about Bush or Putin. In Russia, in USA, in Nigeria. But to be honest it matters to me what you guys think about Russia and its weapon systems and more importantly, where you get your information from. Because you are the guys that are making CMSF and that will reflect russian technology. And I want you to try to reflect those capabilities as close to the reality as possible. Not cripple it, not make it look good. And although I fully understand that you guys may generally dislike Russia I really don't want this to influence the game to skew the balance.

Whoa there... where the heck did you get all this worry from? Aren't you aware that we have NEVER based our simulations on opinions? If we did, CMBB wouldn't be such a great game because according to opinion the German tanks never lost a battle And haven't you read my many posts saying that the latest technologies out of Russia are a HUGE threat to US forces? Specifically in CM this is the RPG-29, AT-14 Koronet-E, and the improved warheads for the older RPG-7V. Why on Earth do you think my having an issue with an uninformed, nationalistic, ranting person on our Forum would have influence over our design decisions? Really...

Granted we (russians) probably have more info about USA weapon capabilities than you guys about russian capabilities (and (!) deficincies) for one simple reason - language barries. Well, plus the fact that historically Russian capabilities are kept secret a lot more than USA.

You got that right! Russia also doesn't have a "free press" like the US does. Name a US military project and I can show you some group being VERY critical of it, exposing its weaknesses and performance problems for the entire world to see. This is not true for Russian equipment. It is also not true for the countries Russia sells its equipment to. Last thing they want to tell their people is they bought a bunch of junk (like India did fairly recently).

Now, I am not saying Russian stuff is junk. Hardly. I'm just saying that US equipment is under a spotlight with all sorts of people standing around it criticizing it. Russian equipment does not get the same treatment. The older Soviet equipment is very easy to get information about because it's been around longer and has actually been in combat against US and other forces. Western researchers have had plenty of access to these things since so much Soviet hardware is now in Western hands (1st Gulf War, DDR, new East European NATO countries, etc). I even got to watch a T-72M1V (I think that is what it was) blown up by a Javelin. The Colonel that invited me to the test said that they had blown up a half dozen so far at about $200,000 per tank. The effects of a Javelin against a T-80 are known only in theory, but against a T-72... hard data exists.

Fortunately for us, Syria has mostly old equipment so we know more about it than we would a current T-80 tank, for example. We know that compared to US equipment most of what Syria has is very inferior. Which makes sense since most of the equipment is 30 years older than the US stuff. But not ALL of Syria's equipment is inferior and just because something is inferior it doesn't make it useless. A T-54B made in the 1950s can still blow apart a Stryker or Bradley made in 2007 very well. Which is why we keep telling people to stop thinking of the Syrians as a pushover. They are not.

So it is important to me what kind of info you have about russian weapons and where your sources are from. And I sincerely hope that they are more serious than guys like usobill or some bogus survey.

If you are willing to judge Combat Mission's integrity based on this one thread... well, I can't take your concerns very seriously. Nothing in this thread, written by me, should give you any reason for concern about CM. I'm simply putting an over the top, uninformed, ultra nationalist racist in his place. Simple as that.

Steve

[dima]

Thanks for clarifying this Steve! I just saw that you were taking this guy's trolls seriously and perhaps missed the bigger picture or took things out of context.

As far as info on modern russian equipment - yes it is certanly a lot less publicised. Yet on russian discussion boards there is cernanly more information available and there is fair share of criticism by folks who are educated and experienced in these subjects. At times people are biased towards taking more sceptical look just because not much information is available - they don't think that such and such capability is well-working and kept secret, they rather assume that it is in a shamefull state and this is why it is kept secret.

lockon.ru and sukhoi.ru forums are good examples of such places. Unfortunately both are in Russian only.

[ June 29, 2007, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: dima ]

[Dogface]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

I think I smell the faint hint of roses in the air.

Nope, sorry that was me.

[Flanker15]

And I thought my thread got off track!

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks dima. I can say that from the US perspective there is a lot of concern about both Russian and Chinese military programs. Both are modernizing and improving their warfighting capability after years of neglect. And let's face it... the last few years of the Soviet state were not the best for the armed forces. Then the disaster afterwards, proven by Chechniya, turned the Russian Bear into a Paper Tiger. But that's changed dramatically and is still changing.

This worries the West because Putin is autocratic and the West always has concerns about such governments with large, well equipped militaries. China has many people wondering how long it will be before there is a direct conflict of some sort. For me, I'm more optimistic. I don't think Russia or China are stupid. A war with the West is just as dangerous now as it was over the last 60 years. There will be no winners.

It is also interesting to note that no advanced AT weapons are in Iraq, despite them being in Lebanon. I think that Iran and Syria don't want to push their luck too much. I think they are correct. If some Abrams were to be taken out by Kornets (which they can do pretty easily) I think the US Air Force would start bombing whichever country they thought the missiles came from. And if it couldn't figure out which one, they would probably bomb both What they are doing now is bad enough, but some high profile tank kills and that would probably be the last straw.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dima, I forgot to say... when you play the game, see what you think of it compared to the information on those Russian sites you mentioned. I'd be curious to know what you think. We have fairly decent basic information on the weapons we need to simulate, so I think everything is pretty good. An RPG-29 is pretty simple so there is less to get wrong. Aircraft, smart munitions, specialized tank systems, etc. are a different story

Steve

[ChrisND]

Go to bed Steve.

[Speedy]

And good job on banning Unsobil it was well deserved.

[MikoyanPT]

The MIG-31 wouldn´t fit in my garage anyway.

I would be happier if i got one of those, they look prettier on your backyard and are better for weekend´s sight seeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEHZPpcXcPo&mode=related&search=

I think its useless having top notch aircraft if you got to hide them in the hoods if the hell brokes loose.

[tiny_tanker]

I think the Syrians are playing the game all wrong, they should invest in the SU-33 MKK like India did, now that is a slick plane. Its almost as nice as ours.

Also, bout time steve!

[GAGA Extrem]

I vote for selling german equipment to them...

...so we can disarm parts of our army and Schäuble can stop his endless "Bundeswehr for inner safety" requests...

*laughs and runs away*

"Ihihihihihi..."

@Battlefront.com:

Ahhh finally I understand why poor Syrians will be in the spotlights of CMSF

[Bigduke6]

Apropos of information in Russian, there is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3ae2so7Yak&mode=related&search=

Some background, this is a report by the NTV television station, which used to be independent but then the Kremlin hammered it. Now NTV concentrates on not making waves so as not to provoke the government, and instead making money.

To that end, they try and draw the viewers in, so the show is aimed at patriotic weapons-lovers.

So what does this NTV report about the T-90 tell us?

1. The 125mm munitions fired by the Iraqis in 1991 were taken out of Russian use in 1973. In other words, the Iraqis didn't just get "monkey tanks", they got "monkey ammo."

2. During testing, the T-90 engineers fired the "equivalent" of 6 x NATO-standard 120mm APFSDS at a T-90, at a range of 200 meters, after which the T-90 under its own power was able to engage targets and kill them.

3. The AT missile inside the tank allows T-90 to reach out to 5 kilometers.

4. The 125mm APFSDS round currently in use is tungsten-core and performs exactly the same as NATO 120mm. Russia considered but rejected depeleted uranium because it was considered hazardous to crews.

5. T-70 and other vehicles using the 125mm cannon have among other shells an HE proximity shell that can detonate above targets, or when it just gets close which is good against helicopters.

6. Fire control is exactly as good as M1 and/or Leopard II. As an example a test crew moving at 25 kph fired 57 shots at a standard firing range at distances of 1.5 to 2.5 km., and obtained 7 hits. The best that NATO tanks have done, by Leopard II, is 6 hits.

7. M1 is substantially heavier than T-90 and so far likely to bog. An example given was a 1993 weapons exposition in Abu Dhabi when an M1 lost a track on a mountain terrain test passed easily by T-90.

8. M1 uses composite armor while T-90 used reactive armor, and Iraq has shown that composite armor has real problems at some aspects. The implication is, thick not clever armor stops incoming shells - and in this category T-90 is superior.

9. M1's only advantage over T-90 is that M1 can navigate by sattelite, which later versions of T-90 will be able to do so as well.

So what to make of this?

Well, for me the bit about the monkey model ammo sold to the Iraqis was quite interesting, maybe it's true. Somehow, it sounds true.

Also, the 1993 track loss by an M1 at Abu Dhabi sounds like it probably happened. If it did happen, I bet CNN and Fox never reported it.

As to the rest - well, it's NTV. Maybe they are telling the truth. Maybe they are just trying to make viewers feel happy Uncle Putin is putting the best tank in the world in the hands of the Russian army.

Still, interesting pictures. But like pretty much everything else in Russia these days, you are foolish to take what you are told at face value.

The only question I have at this point is theoretical: Is the 125mm ammo the Syrians get in the upcoming game, the same quality as 125mm ammo the Soviets might get in a WWIII module? Or would it be possible for different modules to have 125mm APFSDS performing differently?

[Sergei]

Somehow I would think the Iraqi army would at some point have tested just how effective the Soviet weapons really were. If it turned out that APFDFLMFAOIMHOLOL shell could only dent a steel plate when Kremlin advertised it to be teh Death Ray and also help you lose weight just in two weeks with no sweating, I doubt they'd have kept buying from that store for much longer.

[MikeyD]

"4. The 125mm APFSDS round currently in use is tungsten-core ... rejected depeleted uranium because it was considered hazardous to crews"

I was greatly surprised when i read a while ago that the U.S. is transitioning to 120mm tungsten and away from DU. I don't know how far down that road we've travelled in the transition tho. That's a LOT of ammo stocks to replace.

[flamingknives]

AIUI the switch from DU to tungsten is in small calibre weapons without such a pressing need for DU capability. Tank APFSDS rounds are still, AFAICT, DU. The DU rounds are only used during wartime operations.