F-35s jets and S-400 missiles

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat

1) Modern air combat does not imply close range.
2) How does this relate to the S-400?

His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.

No=)

The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A

For Active radar homing (ARH) needed only an approximate area.

The rocket can be launched from a distance of 400 km. She goes much higher than the F35 flies.
the radiation power depends on the distance quadratically ...
Therefore, the closer she is to the plane, the better she sees.

You think the launcher is in the same place as the radar.
But it could be right under the plane.
Or 20 km behind. Or 10 km to the right.

Once again - without reconnaissance, the plane is like a man walking through a minefield.
He can prepare to attack an object 500 m away, but he will be shot at close range with a shotgun from around the corner.

Good air defense can only be overcome with "brute force". If in some region there are 300 air defense missiles ... then you need to launch 400 cruise missiles, and then planes.

You only need to knock out the controlling centers. Without the eyes and ears, those missiles are nothing more than expensive paper weights.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat

1) Modern air combat does not imply close range.
2) How does this relate to the S-400?

His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.

No=)

The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A

For Active radar homing (ARH) needed only an approximate area.

The rocket can be launched from a distance of 400 km. She goes much higher than the F35 flies.
the radiation power depends on the distance quadratically ...
Therefore, the closer she is to the plane, the better she sees.

You think the launcher is in the same place as the radar.
But it could be right under the plane.
Or 20 km behind. Or 10 km to the right.

Once again - without reconnaissance, the plane is like a man walking through a minefield.
He can prepare to attack an object 500 m away, but he will be shot at close range with a shotgun from around the corner.

Good air defense can only be overcome with "brute force". If in some region there are 300 air defense missiles ... then you need to launch 400 cruise missiles, and then planes.

People love to use range as one of the great positives of various missile systems.

But they ignore the obvious. A SAM (or an AAM) with long range will be extremely low on energy and unmanuverable at the extreme limits of its range. That's a simple matter of physics. Which is one reason fighter pilots almost never launch a missile at the outer limits of the missiles range and expect it to get a kill.

About the only time they do so is to force approaching attacking aircraft to at least break formation or ideally to jettison their war loads in order to evade.

I think the first time I heard of something like that was when Robin Olds got his Ace in one day. Him and his wingman jumped about 50 Luftwaffe Fighters massing to attack a bomber fleet. Olds and his wingman hit them hard in two passes, each one picking up X number of fighter hits. Most of the enemy fighters didn't know what as going on, only that they knew that the guy next to him blew up (that 20mm cannon had that effect). The entire gaggle broke formation. The Bomber formation got through that day without enemy fighter indertiction. All because two P-38s made a couple of high speed passes with guns.

The same thing happens when that stealthy bird fires his missiles into an enemy flight. It's going to turn from an orderly flight to a real Circle J*** fast when they start trying to see and find the enemy fighter and they don't know what direction or altitude he is at. And that is how the F-35A is going to enter the Frucus. The SU-35 will enter into the frucus at a severe disadvantage.

 

[Sonc]

Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat

1) Modern air combat does not imply close range.
2) How does this relate to the S-400?

His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.

No=)

The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A

For Active radar homing (ARH) needed only an approximate area.

The rocket can be launched from a distance of 400 km. She goes much higher than the F35 flies.
the radiation power depends on the distance quadratically ...
Therefore, the closer she is to the plane, the better she sees.

You think the launcher is in the same place as the radar.
But it could be right under the plane.
Or 20 km behind. Or 10 km to the right.

Once again - without reconnaissance, the plane is like a man walking through a minefield.
He can prepare to attack an object 500 m away, but he will be shot at close range with a shotgun from around the corner.

Good air defense can only be overcome with "brute force". If in some region there are 300 air defense missiles ... then you need to launch 400 cruise missiles, and then planes.

You only need to knock out the controlling centers. Without the eyes and ears, those missiles are nothing more than expensive paper weights.

I have a feeling that you do not read what I write.
1) Using aircraft without reconnaissance is not effective and dangerous
2) reconnaissance of the area covered by air defense is a problem

In all the articles I read, the f-117 pilots said they were effective because of the great reconnaissance and planning work done. Each route was checked 3 times.

Therefore, the American tactics in this case is to deliver the first strike with cruise missiles. That the air defense would spend their missiles and find their positions.

I think the first time I heard of something like that was when Robin Olds got his Ace in one day. Him and his wingman jumped about 50 Luftwaffe Fighters massing to attack a bomber fleet

What year was that?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat

1) Modern air combat does not imply close range.
2) How does this relate to the S-400?

His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.

No=)

The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A

For Active radar homing (ARH) needed only an approximate area.

The rocket can be launched from a distance of 400 km. She goes much higher than the F35 flies.
the radiation power depends on the distance quadratically ...
Therefore, the closer she is to the plane, the better she sees.

You think the launcher is in the same place as the radar.
But it could be right under the plane.
Or 20 km behind. Or 10 km to the right.

Once again - without reconnaissance, the plane is like a man walking through a minefield.
He can prepare to attack an object 500 m away, but he will be shot at close range with a shotgun from around the corner.

Good air defense can only be overcome with "brute force". If in some region there are 300 air defense missiles ... then you need to launch 400 cruise missiles, and then planes.

You only need to knock out the controlling centers. Without the eyes and ears, those missiles are nothing more than expensive paper weights.

I have a feeling that you do not read what I write.
1) Using aircraft without reconnaissance is not effective and dangerous
2) reconnaissance of the area covered by air defense is a problem

In all the articles I read, the f-117 pilots said they were effective because of the great reconnaissance and planning work done. Each route was checked 3 times.

Therefore, the American tactics in this case is to deliver the first strike with cruise missiles. That the air defense would spend their missiles and find their positions.

I think the first time I heard of something like that was when Robin Olds got his Ace in one day. Him and his wingman jumped about 50 Luftwaffe Fighters massing to attack a bomber fleet

What year was that?

The downed F-117 was an series of blunders on the USAF part with a leftover plan from Vietnam plan plus some really good spying by the enemy.

1. Flying the same flight profile each day at exactly the same route, same altitude, same speed, and same time each day. Now, that was stupid with the Nickels and even dumber with the F-117.

2. The Enemy had the information prior to the flight down to the last detail. They were able to narrow their radar down to a pinpoint and fire at exactly the location of the F-117 at the exact time, altitude, speed and more. The didn't even need a lock. The F-117 was bagged due to the brilliant spy network of the serbs and the stupidity of the Americans. This was not repeated 2 years later for Iraq where many more flights were done against an even more formitable ground missile defense and not one single F-117 was lost. The Iraqis had to use their radar in a broad sweep which reduces the effective range and strength.

As for the year for the Olds P-38 attack, that was in early 1944 when the AAF were doing fighter sweeps ahead of the bombers using the two long ranged fighters on hand, the P-38J and the P-51B.

 

[Dayton3]

Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat

1) Modern air combat does not imply close range.
2) How does this relate to the S-400?

His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.

No=)

The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A

For Active radar homing (ARH) needed only an approximate area.

The rocket can be launched from a distance of 400 km. She goes much higher than the F35 flies.
the radiation power depends on the distance quadratically ...
Therefore, the closer she is to the plane, the better she sees.

You think the launcher is in the same place as the radar.
But it could be right under the plane.
Or 20 km behind. Or 10 km to the right.

Once again - without reconnaissance, the plane is like a man walking through a minefield.
He can prepare to attack an object 500 m away, but he will be shot at close range with a shotgun from around the corner.

Good air defense can only be overcome with "brute force". If in some region there are 300 air defense missiles ... then you need to launch 400 cruise missiles, and then planes.

You only need to knock out the controlling centers. Without the eyes and ears, those missiles are nothing more than expensive paper weights.

I have a feeling that you do not read what I write.
1) Using aircraft without reconnaissance is not effective and dangerous
2) reconnaissance of the area covered by air defense is a problem

In all the articles I read, the f-117 pilots said they were effective because of the great reconnaissance and planning work done. Each route was checked 3 times.

Therefore, the American tactics in this case is to deliver the first strike with cruise missiles. That the air defense would spend their missiles and find their positions.

I think the first time I heard of something like that was when Robin Olds got his Ace in one day. Him and his wingman jumped about 50 Luftwaffe Fighters massing to attack a bomber fleet

What year was that?

The downed F-117 was an series of blunders on the USAF part with a leftover plan from Vietnam plan plus some really good spying by the enemy.

1. Flying the same flight profile each day at exactly the same route, same altitude, same speed, and same time each day. Now, that was stupid with the Nickels and even dumber with the F-117.

2. The Enemy had the information prior to the flight down to the last detail. They were able to narrow their radar down to a pinpoint and fire at exactly the location of the F-117 at the exact time, altitude, speed and more.

If you look at the details of a vast number of losses to SAMs from the Vietnam War, to Israel in the Middle East and up to the modern day you will find that in a lot of them they occurred mainly because the air force got lazy.

 

[AZrailwhale]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

 

[AZrailwhale]

How to shoot down a F-117.

Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
Know the exact flight plan
Know the exact altitude
Narrow your Antennae search down to a very tight search area
Use more than a few Radar Sites to increase the chances for a lock on

What are you comparing?
This situation is 1 on 1.
I may be wrong, but in my opinion you were interested in this particular situation.

On the one hand, a super-modern, expensive stealth plane ... on the other ... decommissioned war junk.
These missiles have expired. They are 20 years old. One of the missiles flew close to the plane (the pilot saw it) and did not explode ...
(Radar was 30 years old)!
These were not only the old, but also the cheapest missiles ... with a semi-active guidance system.
These are weapons that were given away because they are cheaper than properly disposed of.

the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.

How does the pilot know where the radar is?
How does he know how many radars are in the area?
How does he know the number of launchers in the area and their location?

(There are mobile radars of various capacities).
1
2

A radar that isn’t emitting is useless. Radar, like a flashlight can be seen far further than it can see. On the modern battlefield, anything that can be seen can be destroyed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How to shoot down a F-117.

Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
Know the exact flight plan
Know the exact altitude
Narrow your Antennae search down to a very tight search area
Use more than a few Radar Sites to increase the chances for a lock on

What are you comparing?
This situation is 1 on 1.
I may be wrong, but in my opinion you were interested in this particular situation.

On the one hand, a super-modern, expensive stealth plane ... on the other ... decommissioned war junk.
These missiles have expired. They are 20 years old. One of the missiles flew close to the plane (the pilot saw it) and did not explode ...
(Radar was 30 years old)!
These were not only the old, but also the cheapest missiles ... with a semi-active guidance system.
These are weapons that were given away because they are cheaper than properly disposed of.

the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.

How does the pilot know where the radar is?
How does he know how many radars are in the area?
How does he know the number of launchers in the area and their location?

(There are mobile radars of various capacities).
1
2

A radar that isn’t emitting is useless. Radar, like a flashlight can be seen far further than it can see. On the modern battlefield, anything that can be seen can be destroyed.

I can see the other guys point of view. Not with Russia and the US but with the North Koreans who hides much of their artillery and radar in caves along the DMZ. At least that is what they want us to think. They may have exactly what we think they have, they may have more, or they may have a ghost force with tatters of a real force. The only way to know is to go into full scale attack.

The problem with that is, what happens if they really do have what we think they have. They are just over 30 miles from the capital of South Korea with all that Artillery pointed at the highest population point in SK and the will to use it. In essence, NK holds millions of SKs as hostage at this point. If those systems were out in the open, it would be childs play to take them out before most of them could fire. But they aren't out where they can be neutralized much less IDd and that poses a huge problem. So the NKens do have systems that have their radar off and it's a trap. One where both sides know it's a trap.

 

[harmonica]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[AZrailwhale]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

If we lost the Vietnam War, Why did the PRVN sign the Paris Peace Accords which accomplished none of their objectives? The answer is that they wanted US troops out of Vietnam so they could renege on their promises, invade and conquer South Vietnam without having to fight the superior American troops.

 

[harmonica]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

If we lost the Vietnam War, Why did the PRVN sign the Paris Peace Accords which accomplished none of their objectives? The answer is that they wanted US troops out of Vietnam so they could renege on their promises, invade and conquer South Vietnam without having to fight the superior American troops.

hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahha
there is no more South Vietnam---we did not win the Vietnam War

 

[harmonica]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

If we lost the Vietnam War, Why did the PRVN sign the Paris Peace Accords which accomplished none of their objectives? The answer is that they wanted US troops out of Vietnam so they could renege on their promises, invade and conquer South Vietnam without having to fight the superior American troops.

..that's right--they DID conquer SV

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

Okay, let's look at the blunders.

The US Ground Pounders ALWAYS defeated the enemy. But the enemy was allowed to resupply over and over again. Now we come to the real failure and that was in the Air Power both USAF and Navy (including Marines). They were NEVER allowed to do what they knew how to do with the exception of the two Linebackers.

We lost more F-105 Pilots than we had. WE ended up training Cargo Pilots to pilot the Nickels. Why was that? The Nickels always flew the same racetrack flight paths at the same time every day. All the enemy had to do is position their ground installations along those paths and wait. There were viable targets that were placed off limits like Dams and Power Plants. We didn't touch the railroad from China to Hanoi. The Missions were micro managed by the McNamarra and Johnson. Johnson even bragged about it. Then came Nixon and Abrams. Abrams was asked what they should do and he said, not in his exact words, do what you need to do. That means, as of 1969, the Racetracks ended and we started hitting those off limits targets. China was told that the Railroad was going to be destroyed. They complained that the Railroad Workers were all Chinese. Nixon told them they needed to get their Chinese Workers out of there if they didn't want to lose them. All of a sudden, the resupplying was cut deeply and the Air Attacks could come at any time from any direction. The NV had to cover a much larger area with their Sams and AAs. All of a sudden, they weren't effective anymore. And the Buffs started hitting hard as well. In 1971, Abrams made the brag that he could fly in a Chopper anywhere in South Vietnam safely without fear of being shot down. He was right. And the Caches just outside of South Vietnam were being destroyed as they were being built up. In late Dec 1972, Nixon allowed the USAF, Navy and Marines to do Linebacker II because the NV were refusing to go to the Paris Peace Talks. It took them 11 days to decide to reenter the peace talks. The War was won.

Now for how it was lost. In the Peace Talks, the agreement didn't have anything preventing the NV from building up supplies and forces in Laos and Cambodia. By then Laos had changed in government where it was sympathetic to the NV and not the SV. Late 1972, the USAF was asked (demanded) to leave Laos. And Cambodia didn't have much of a government to begin with to have any say in anything. So in 1973, the US does a drastic troop reduction. The US promised that we would resupply the SV and provide Air Power in the event of the NV attack.

When the NV attacked with a well trained and battle hardened army of 550,000, they came up against a 1.3 million SV army. The math falls apart on this one. The SV had only enough rifles for 400,000 troops and enough ammo for a Mag for each one. Plus, their Fuel for their trucks,tanks and recips were all but depleted. They had almost no Jet Fuel either. The promise of the resupply was withdrawn by Ford. Plus, the Air Power that was sitting in Thailand wasn't used either. I knew it was lost when a captured F-5 with a Red Star painted on it's tail attacked the SV Palace in Saigon. The NV took those 2 years and built up hard in plain friggin sight.

Ford, Congress and the American People threw the South Vietnamese under the bus.

 

[harmonica]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

Okay, let's look at the blunders.

The US Ground Pounders ALWAYS defeated the enemy. But the enemy was allowed to resupply over and over again. Now we come to the real failure and that was in the Air Power both USAF and Navy (including Marines). They were NEVER allowed to do what they knew how to do with the exception of the two Linebackers.

We lost more F-105 Pilots than we had. WE ended up training Cargo Pilots to pilot the Nickels. Why was that? The Nickels always flew the same racetrack flight paths at the same time every day. All the enemy had to do is position their ground installations along those paths and wait. There were viable targets that were placed off limits like Dams and Power Plants. We didn't touch the railroad from China to Hanoi. The Missions were micro managed by the McNamarra and Johnson. Johnson even bragged about it. Then came Nixon and Abrams. Abrams was asked what they should do and he said, not in his exact words, do what you need to do. That means, as of 1969, the Racetracks ended and we started hitting those off limits targets. China was told that the Railroad was going to be destroyed. They complained that the Railroad Workers were all Chinese. Nixon told them they needed to get their Chinese Workers out of there if they didn't want to lose them. All of a sudden, the resupplying was cut deeply and the Air Attacks could come at any time from any direction. The NV had to cover a much larger area with their Sams and AAs. All of a sudden, they weren't effective anymore. And the Buffs started hitting hard as well. In 1971, Abrams made the brag that he could fly in a Chopper anywhere in South Vietnam safely without fear of being shot down. He was right. And the Caches just outside of South Vietnam were being destroyed as they were being built up. In late Dec 1972, Nixon allowed the USAF, Navy and Marines to do Linebacker II because the NV were refusing to go to the Paris Peace Talks. It took them 11 days to decide to reenter the peace talks. The War was won.

Now for how it was lost. In the Peace Talks, the agreement didn't have anything preventing the NV from building up supplies and forces in Laos and Cambodia. By then Laos had changed in government where it was sympathetic to the NV and not the SV. Late 1972, the USAF was asked (demanded) to leave Laos. And Cambodia didn't have much of a government to begin with to have any say in anything. So in 1973, the US does a drastic troop reduction. The US promised that we would resupply the SV and provide Air Power in the event of the NV attack.

When the NV attacked with a well trained and battle hardened army of 550,000, they came up against a 1.3 million SV army. The math falls apart on this one. The SV had only enough rifles for 400,000 troops and enough ammo for a Mag for each one. Plus, their Fuel for their trucks,tanks and recips were all but depleted. They had almost no Jet Fuel either. The promise of the resupply was withdrawn by Ford. Plus, the Air Power that was sitting in Thailand wasn't used either. I knew it was lost when a captured F-5 with a Red Star painted on it's tail attacked the SV Palace in Saigon. The NV took those 2 years and built up hard in plain friggin sight.

Ford, Congress and the American People threw the South Vietnamese under the bus.

..what's your point? the US could've won??!!

 

[harmonica]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

Okay, let's look at the blunders.

The US Ground Pounders ALWAYS defeated the enemy. But the enemy was allowed to resupply over and over again. Now we come to the real failure and that was in the Air Power both USAF and Navy (including Marines). They were NEVER allowed to do what they knew how to do with the exception of the two Linebackers.

We lost more F-105 Pilots than we had. WE ended up training Cargo Pilots to pilot the Nickels. Why was that? The Nickels always flew the same racetrack flight paths at the same time every day. All the enemy had to do is position their ground installations along those paths and wait. There were viable targets that were placed off limits like Dams and Power Plants. We didn't touch the railroad from China to Hanoi. The Missions were micro managed by the McNamarra and Johnson. Johnson even bragged about it. Then came Nixon and Abrams. Abrams was asked what they should do and he said, not in his exact words, do what you need to do. That means, as of 1969, the Racetracks ended and we started hitting those off limits targets. China was told that the Railroad was going to be destroyed. They complained that the Railroad Workers were all Chinese. Nixon told them they needed to get their Chinese Workers out of there if they didn't want to lose them. All of a sudden, the resupplying was cut deeply and the Air Attacks could come at any time from any direction. The NV had to cover a much larger area with their Sams and AAs. All of a sudden, they weren't effective anymore. And the Buffs started hitting hard as well. In 1971, Abrams made the brag that he could fly in a Chopper anywhere in South Vietnam safely without fear of being shot down. He was right. And the Caches just outside of South Vietnam were being destroyed as they were being built up. In late Dec 1972, Nixon allowed the USAF, Navy and Marines to do Linebacker II because the NV were refusing to go to the Paris Peace Talks. It took them 11 days to decide to reenter the peace talks. The War was won.

Now for how it was lost. In the Peace Talks, the agreement didn't have anything preventing the NV from building up supplies and forces in Laos and Cambodia. By then Laos had changed in government where it was sympathetic to the NV and not the SV. Late 1972, the USAF was asked (demanded) to leave Laos. And Cambodia didn't have much of a government to begin with to have any say in anything. So in 1973, the US does a drastic troop reduction. The US promised that we would resupply the SV and provide Air Power in the event of the NV attack.

When the NV attacked with a well trained and battle hardened army of 550,000, they came up against a 1.3 million SV army. The math falls apart on this one. The SV had only enough rifles for 400,000 troops and enough ammo for a Mag for each one. Plus, their Fuel for their trucks,tanks and recips were all but depleted. They had almost no Jet Fuel either. The promise of the resupply was withdrawn by Ford. Plus, the Air Power that was sitting in Thailand wasn't used either. I knew it was lost when a captured F-5 with a Red Star painted on it's tail attacked the SV Palace in Saigon. The NV took those 2 years and built up hard in plain friggin sight.

Ford, Congress and the American People threw the South Vietnamese under the bus.

.....no, the ground pounders didn't do it--the air and choppers provided a great advantage
..here, the ground pounders got pounded...then they had to use choppers/etc
2 whole platoons decimated/plus
without air and choppers, it would've been worse

Operation Buffalo (1967) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[harmonica]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

Okay, let's look at the blunders.

The US Ground Pounders ALWAYS defeated the enemy. But the enemy was allowed to resupply over and over again. Now we come to the real failure and that was in the Air Power both USAF and Navy (including Marines). They were NEVER allowed to do what they knew how to do with the exception of the two Linebackers.

We lost more F-105 Pilots than we had. WE ended up training Cargo Pilots to pilot the Nickels. Why was that? The Nickels always flew the same racetrack flight paths at the same time every day. All the enemy had to do is position their ground installations along those paths and wait. There were viable targets that were placed off limits like Dams and Power Plants. We didn't touch the railroad from China to Hanoi. The Missions were micro managed by the McNamarra and Johnson. Johnson even bragged about it. Then came Nixon and Abrams. Abrams was asked what they should do and he said, not in his exact words, do what you need to do. That means, as of 1969, the Racetracks ended and we started hitting those off limits targets. China was told that the Railroad was going to be destroyed. They complained that the Railroad Workers were all Chinese. Nixon told them they needed to get their Chinese Workers out of there if they didn't want to lose them. All of a sudden, the resupplying was cut deeply and the Air Attacks could come at any time from any direction. The NV had to cover a much larger area with their Sams and AAs. All of a sudden, they weren't effective anymore. And the Buffs started hitting hard as well. In 1971, Abrams made the brag that he could fly in a Chopper anywhere in South Vietnam safely without fear of being shot down. He was right. And the Caches just outside of South Vietnam were being destroyed as they were being built up. In late Dec 1972, Nixon allowed the USAF, Navy and Marines to do Linebacker II because the NV were refusing to go to the Paris Peace Talks. It took them 11 days to decide to reenter the peace talks. The War was won.

Now for how it was lost. In the Peace Talks, the agreement didn't have anything preventing the NV from building up supplies and forces in Laos and Cambodia. By then Laos had changed in government where it was sympathetic to the NV and not the SV. Late 1972, the USAF was asked (demanded) to leave Laos. And Cambodia didn't have much of a government to begin with to have any say in anything. So in 1973, the US does a drastic troop reduction. The US promised that we would resupply the SV and provide Air Power in the event of the NV attack.

When the NV attacked with a well trained and battle hardened army of 550,000, they came up against a 1.3 million SV army. The math falls apart on this one. The SV had only enough rifles for 400,000 troops and enough ammo for a Mag for each one. Plus, their Fuel for their trucks,tanks and recips were all but depleted. They had almost no Jet Fuel either. The promise of the resupply was withdrawn by Ford. Plus, the Air Power that was sitting in Thailand wasn't used either. I knew it was lost when a captured F-5 with a Red Star painted on it's tail attacked the SV Palace in Saigon. The NV took those 2 years and built up hard in plain friggin sight.

Ford, Congress and the American People threw the South Vietnamese under the bus.

without air and choppers, the ground pounders would've been in big trouble
..the NVA were good..greatly respected by the US forces

Battle of Ia Drang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dayton3]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

No war is unwinnable.

 

[harmonica]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

No war is unwinnable.

hahahhahahahahahhaha
OBVIOUSLY they are
.....2 of the most powerful nations lost in Afghanistan --- !!!!! Britain and Russia......not 1 but 2!!!!!! explain that
....the US lost in Vietnam
WW2 was unwinnable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dayton3]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

No war is unwinnable.

hahahhahahahahahhaha
OBVIOUSLY they are
.....2 of the most powerful nations lost in Afghanistan --- !!!!! Britain and Russia......not 1 but 2!!!!!! explain that
....the US lost in Vietnam
WW2 was unwinnable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you babbling about?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia

Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.

plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam

Vietnam War was unwinnable

www.usmessageboard.com

Okay, let's look at the blunders.

The US Ground Pounders ALWAYS defeated the enemy. But the enemy was allowed to resupply over and over again. Now we come to the real failure and that was in the Air Power both USAF and Navy (including Marines). They were NEVER allowed to do what they knew how to do with the exception of the two Linebackers.

We lost more F-105 Pilots than we had. WE ended up training Cargo Pilots to pilot the Nickels. Why was that? The Nickels always flew the same racetrack flight paths at the same time every day. All the enemy had to do is position their ground installations along those paths and wait. There were viable targets that were placed off limits like Dams and Power Plants. We didn't touch the railroad from China to Hanoi. The Missions were micro managed by the McNamarra and Johnson. Johnson even bragged about it. Then came Nixon and Abrams. Abrams was asked what they should do and he said, not in his exact words, do what you need to do. That means, as of 1969, the Racetracks ended and we started hitting those off limits targets. China was told that the Railroad was going to be destroyed. They complained that the Railroad Workers were all Chinese. Nixon told them they needed to get their Chinese Workers out of there if they didn't want to lose them. All of a sudden, the resupplying was cut deeply and the Air Attacks could come at any time from any direction. The NV had to cover a much larger area with their Sams and AAs. All of a sudden, they weren't effective anymore. And the Buffs started hitting hard as well. In 1971, Abrams made the brag that he could fly in a Chopper anywhere in South Vietnam safely without fear of being shot down. He was right. And the Caches just outside of South Vietnam were being destroyed as they were being built up. In late Dec 1972, Nixon allowed the USAF, Navy and Marines to do Linebacker II because the NV were refusing to go to the Paris Peace Talks. It took them 11 days to decide to reenter the peace talks. The War was won.

Now for how it was lost. In the Peace Talks, the agreement didn't have anything preventing the NV from building up supplies and forces in Laos and Cambodia. By then Laos had changed in government where it was sympathetic to the NV and not the SV. Late 1972, the USAF was asked (demanded) to leave Laos. And Cambodia didn't have much of a government to begin with to have any say in anything. So in 1973, the US does a drastic troop reduction. The US promised that we would resupply the SV and provide Air Power in the event of the NV attack.

When the NV attacked with a well trained and battle hardened army of 550,000, they came up against a 1.3 million SV army. The math falls apart on this one. The SV had only enough rifles for 400,000 troops and enough ammo for a Mag for each one. Plus, their Fuel for their trucks,tanks and recips were all but depleted. They had almost no Jet Fuel either. The promise of the resupply was withdrawn by Ford. Plus, the Air Power that was sitting in Thailand wasn't used either. I knew it was lost when a captured F-5 with a Red Star painted on it's tail attacked the SV Palace in Saigon. The NV took those 2 years and built up hard in plain friggin sight.

Ford, Congress and the American People threw the South Vietnamese under the bus.

..what's your point? the US could've won??!!

The US could not win. It never could win. The only way for the US to win would be to completely take over SV like the French did. Then, all of a sudden, even the friendlies ain't so friendly anymore.