FIST, FCS, idZ = Superior western military training.

isn't that what happened in the first gulf war where the Republican Guard tanks were destroyed by the Coalition tanks before they could even see their enemy?

not sure about the drive into Iraq recently - although I seem to recal that there was more problems with RPGs than the tanks the Iraq forces had left?

again no RL experience just reading the news and taking an interest so could be very wrong?
 
think most tanks in iraq were killed by planes. also there we had the numbers and tech advantage.
only challenger lost in iraq was to another challie unfortunately. RPGs are a threat but mainly to warriors, not so much to challies.
 
RPG's were certainly dangerous- many tankies left their gear on the outside and RPG's would lead to them catching fire. For the most part though recoiless rifles were the most scary and as far as I'm aware scored the only (pure) kill in the Thunder Runs. Iraqi tanks were generally no danger because they were usually spotted and destroyed at distance
 
Also a significant fact about the Iraqi tanks (other then numerical and air superiority of Us forces) is the fact that not only were the Iraqi tanks used several generations older than what the americans had, they were also export versions of those old generation tanks.

Russia is well known to only sell dumbed down versions of their hardware (a major reason why their material is so widespread and cheap). A trend only recently changing (for example the new sukhoi-30 Fighters (Su-27 deriative) for India that are on some levels more advanced than the Suckhoi-27/35 flown by Russia itself).

*This thread may be going offtopic but it's an interesting discussion so why not let it?*
 
The second myth disproved by this war is the myth propagated by the proponents of the "hi-tech" war, who believe in the superiority of the most modern weapons and inability of older-generation weapons to counteract the latest systems. Today the technological gap between the Iraqi weapons and those of the coalition has reached 25-30 years, which corresponds to two "generations" in weapons design. The primary Iraqi weapons correspond to the level of the early 1970s. Since that time the Americans, on the other hand, have launched at least two major rearmament efforts: the "75-83 program" and the "90-97 program". Moreover, currently the US is in the middle of another major modernization and rearmament program that will continue for the next five years. Despite of this obvious gap, Iraqi resistance has already been publicly qualified by the US as "fierce and resilient". Analysts believe that the correlation of losses is entirely acceptable to the Iraqis and they [ the analysts ] do not see any strategic coalition advantage in this war. Once again this proves that success in modern warfare is achieved not so much through technological superiority but primarily through training, competent command and resilience of the troops. Under such conditions even relatively old weapons can inflict heavy losses on a technologically-superior enemy.

This quote was taken from a Pravda document on the 2nd Gulf War. While the source can be viewed as biased against the coalition, it is also less biased FOR the coalition than all of the western media were at the time. If you can sift out the good points from the bias, there are some very good lessons to be learned.
 
Russia is well known to only sell dumbed down versions of their hardware

Thats true of all the major arms exporters, whether its declared to the customer or not.
 
True that :wink: But the point was the Iraqis had no real (military) chance to begin with and comparing such real life conflicts to balance a battlegame will always be biased towards US (and to a lesser extent NATO).

Or that's my opinion anyway :D
 
A fair few of them are probably dusting off red stars and eyeing up the opposition as we speak, lol!

Dunno how much of an impact that'll have at first, a lot of the money for new vehicles will have already been allocated, so they'll probably keep rumbling off the production lines for a little while yet. In practical terms, it probably means they'll be using 2nd line equipment for a while longer yet!

Good news for me as my BMP's are all ACE BMP-2's!!
 
Da Boss said:
isn't that what happened in the first gulf war where the Republican Guard tanks were destroyed by the Coalition tanks before they could even see their enemy?

Few problems with that as example:

a) Coalition had total air superiority. Would they have equal superiority against russian forces? They aren't short of their own fighters and AA weapons themselves afterall.
b) they had inferior EXPORT models with less protection and inferior ammunition. Mistake to think Russian tanks would be equally bad. Did the Iraqi ones have even ATGW missiles? Russian tanks can extend their range of fire nicely by using ATGW missiles. Those got to hurt.

Also warfare against Russian wouldn't probably be fought on deserts where you have nothing to block line of sight so combat ranges might be bit closer negating somewhat the range advantage.
 
Well, it's not like the US hasn't been able to train with OpFor using equipment equivalent to Russian stuff, tneva...

Though, it would be akin to stomping on Ohio...
 
Hiromoon said:
Well, it's not like the US hasn't been able to train with OpFor using equipment equivalent to Russian stuff, tneva...

Though, it would be akin to stomping on Ohio...

the us recently trained with alot of russian equipment, it was the marines who trained and equiped in a few respects the georgain forces, with the aim that the georgian would hold a fuel line and sell the fuel in $ rather than euros.

russia wasnt keen on it, so an american bank held funds back from borrowing to persuad a few choice people to call against the russian defending their territory against an american led take over of the georgan economy... its amazing how cheap polatitions are to buy especialy european delagates.

i may have to do a georgian army, basicly russian but with marpat.


note: not sure on correct spelling on the russian georgian name so sorry for spelling error.
 
Back
Top