Countries with weapons from U.S. and Russia

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Everybody must have forgotten how the Iraqi army was utterly destroyed despite their Soviet weaponry. Highway of Death ring a bell?



You are attacking an enemey that isn't there (See Gulf War 2 The Remake. They're never quite as good, somehow).

No one above has suggested that Soviet era weaponry was more sophisticated or generally more effective than then-current US/Western weaponry, but if they had, the ability to shoot up an effectively undefended traffic jam would be a pretty poor demonstration of western superiority.


In the dark! That's a clue for ya. The lack of night vision and the incredibly stupid tactics are but two of the Soviet satellite states shortcomings. All we heard in America was the threat of huge casualties and then we walked through their massive military as though they were not there. Trained and equipped by mighty Russia!

 

[Shannow]

Russia trained Iraq in the WMD fiasco era ?

And they had "massive" armies ?

And who was warning of the "massive" casualties ?

Same people who (mis)identified all the other stuff and fed it down your necks ?

 

[Kamele0N]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Everybody must have forgotten how the Iraqi army was utterly destroyed despite their Soviet weaponry.


Few other things about entering that altercation that have been forgotten too...


I am sure that Yenks have forgoten how their Abrams tanks were defeated in 2014 NATO exercises....

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/romania...me-5d132c25e9a5

Romanian Tr-85m1 is just upgraded Russian T55

Edit: My point was...that is not that Russian equipement is inferior...proper training is what it counts...

 

[SteveSRT8]

Excuse me, but they did indeed have WMD's, if you're speaking of the media binge prior to the war about poor intelligence. We found chemical weapons stockpiles and the administration chose not to reveal everything to the media. Plus there is satellite imagery of convoys to Syria as the war was about to be started. Pretty obvious what went on.

And Russian advisors and trainers were dispersed throughout the Iraqi military. Don't fall for what YOU have been fed.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Russia trained Iraq in the WMD fiasco era ?

And they had "massive" armies ?

And who was warning of the "massive" casualties ?

Same people who (mis)identified all the other stuff and fed it down your necks ?


I thought he was referring to Desert Storm, c. 1991.

Iraq had a huge army. A large number of mechanized divisions, a large air force, an integrated air defense system.

Iraq had spent most of the 80s at war with Iran and yes, they used chemical weapons during that conflict, including the slaughter of an entire Kurdish village.

Iraq used chemical weapons on Kurdish villages in March of 1991. I was there for that.

Don't fall for the popular "Saddam didn't have chemical weapons" narrative that the press was spouting after the invasion in 2003.

It's proper to say that chemical weapons couldn't be found by the UN inspectors, but that doesn't mean that they weren't there...

If you believe that Saddam voluntarily destroyed all his chemical weapons, well, you can believe anything...but given the Iraqi history with chemical weapons, you simply cannot say that Iraq didn't have them. They had them and they used them.

And over 5,000 US servicemen suffered from chemical burns after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. From what chemical weapons were found. I still think there are weapons buried in the desert that we will never find...just look at the MiGs that were found buried.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: Kamele0N

I am sure that Yenks have forgoten how their Abrams tanks were defeated in 2014 NATO exercises....

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/romania...me-5d132c25e9a5

Romanian Tr-85m1 is just upgraded Russian T55

Edit: My point was...that is not that Russian equipement is inferior...proper training is what it counts...


War games rarely translate to reality. Failure to take in the big picture. War games have rules. War itself has pretty much none.

The biggest fault of war games is that everyone knows there is going to be a battle, and where. That rarely happens in real war.

The biggest fault of nations with Soviet weaponry is that they almost exclusively have no friends, except for other jackhole nations that will never really help eachother, and populations just waiting for a chink to form in the armor so they overrun their own cities and cut the throats of the masters. Speaking of Romania, what ever happened to that Nikolai guy who used to run that whole thing?

This situation helped the USSR to guarantee its own defeat without ever fighting a real battle. Nobody ever figures that into the war games. Romania can win a war game, but their whole nation would last a couple of hours in an actual fight.

The Republican Guard that showed up for 73 Easting and Medina Ridge was hardly poorly trained. They were among the best tank operators in the world, and willing to die rather face defeat.

They were in the advantage of actually knowing when and where for battle. Broad daylight too. It didn't matter.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Excuse me, but they did indeed have WMD's, if you're speaking of the media binge prior to the war about poor intelligence. We found chemical weapons stockpiles and the administration chose not to reveal everything to the media. Plus there is satellite imagery of convoys to Syria as the war was about to be started. Pretty obvious what went on.

And Russian advisors and trainers were dispersed throughout the Iraqi military. Don't fall for what YOU have been fed.


And Syria mysteriously had chemical weapons to use in its civil war recently! Hrm.......wonder how those got there?

Hindsight is 20/20, but even when you look at hindsight, there is a situation to be looked at:

Saddam is guilty of using chemical weapons and has been thwarted attempting to import chemical weapons again, and again, and again.

Backing off of Saddam only required 2 "reasonable assumptions":

1. That Saddam had finally decided to "live and let live" with regards to WMD's, despite continuing all of his other bad behavior.
2. That despite having to be kept in a No-Fly pen for a decade, he had finally become a reasonable person.

It's easy to make these assumptions now, but back then? Really?

The man had officers that were professional "lascivious abusers" (I'm using a nice term for what they really were). Who in their right mind would assume he had decided to be a good boy in any way at all?

 

[Kamele0N]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp

The biggest fault of nations with Soviet weaponry is that they almost exclusively have no friends, except for other jackhole nations that will never really help eachother, and populations just waiting for a chink to form in the armor so they overrun their own cities and cut the throats of the masters. Speaking of Romania, what ever happened to that Nikolai guy who used to run that whole thing?

Mmmm I will remember that...you never know when doorbell will ring and tere will be some unknown "uncle" on a door claiming that he came as a friend

I dont need fake "relatives" (friends) on my door.

Especially if all he can offer is to be door to door salesman

I am not trading "my" 7.62 for useless NATO flobert caliber in .22lr

And for that Nikolai thing...he got what he deserved...for more details ask your Uncle...he knows better

But why Kennedy?