Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US VS USSR circa 1965

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mashiach View Post
    I will never believe those countries were capable of producing armaments by themselves apart from small arms. Hence they would have to rely on foreign arms supplies in case of major conflict. There was no land suuply route to Middle East and Africa because USSR was bordering Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. All of them were US allies.
    That's true but you have to look on a bigger scale. Any side theatre of importance diverting US or NATO (French and UK mainly because it's their area of interest because of colonies/former colonies) is a good thing in case of a CE conflict. Even it does not last long.
    Arabs attacking Israel for example means diverting hardware at least, possibly expeditionnary units at best which may lack in Germany, even if in 65, the odd of Arabs beating Israel are small
    Same for any combined Angola-Zambia supported by Zaire or Uganda or Nigeria on Rhodesia-South Africa may mean to divert a MAU to help
    I am not even talking about a NK attack on SK with Chinese support or a North Vietnam attack on the South
    Any ally would scream for help
    Remember also that India was Moscow more or less aligned and may threaten Pakistan
    Egypt is directly threatening the Suez canal
    North Yemen is threatening both South Yemen and KSA etc etc

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mashiach View Post

      On your feet soldier!

      US had enough Phantoms with AGM-12 and Hueys with AGM-22 to deal with T-55 armadas...

      Never give up!
      And the Russians had plenty of Mig-21s and were starting to push out ZSU-23s. There'd be a lot of attrition and in the face of that considerable difficulty actually stopping the advance. Heck even the old ZSU-57s could deal with Hueys. Certainly the Soviet forces wouldn't be impervious but they wouldn't be in any risk of elimination or hugely significant slowing.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
        That's true but you have to look on a bigger scale. Any side theatre of importance diverting US or NATO (French and UK mainly because it's their area of interest because of colonies/former colonies) is a good thing in case of a CE conflict. Even it does not last long.
        Arabs attacking Israel for example means diverting hardware at least, possibly expeditionnary units at best which may lack in Germany, even if in 65, the odd of Arabs beating Israel are small
        Same for any combined Angola-Zambia supported by Zaire or Uganda or Nigeria on Rhodesia-South Africa may mean to divert a MAU to help
        I am not even talking about a NK attack on SK with Chinese support or a North Vietnam attack on the South
        Any ally would scream for help
        Remember also that India was Moscow more or less aligned and may threaten Pakistan
        Egypt is directly threatening the Suez canal
        North Yemen is threatening both South Yemen and KSA etc etc
        I wonder how do you know that all those Leftist movements in Third World would have won without Soviet help? In fact US had plenty of ways to suppress those movements without getting boots on the ground. From depriving them of Soviet supplies and arming the opposite side to deploying Forrestal or Kitty Hawk carrier groups for air support of US-friendly forces. There was no need to divert any troops from Western Europe.

        As to China and India I wouldn't exaggerate their military potential at that time. Despite having nuclear programs, the fact which is irrelevant to this discussion, they were only capable of producing limited amount of armored vehicles and aircraft. So even their Land Forces wouldn't represent any significant threat, let alone Air Force and Navy.

        But even if the USSR had provided supplies by land in Asia and Leftists had taken over Korea, Vietnam or Pakistan would it have meant some major shift in this World War?

        Originally posted by Amur_Tiger View Post

        And the Russians had plenty of Mig-21s and were starting to push out ZSU-23s. There'd be a lot of attrition and in the face of that considerable difficulty actually stopping the advance. Heck even the old ZSU-57s could deal with Hueys. Certainly the Soviet forces wouldn't be impervious but they wouldn't be in any risk of elimination or hugely significant slowing.
        The range of AGM-12 exceeds the firing range of ZSU-23 and ZSU-57. So these AA systems might have been effectively engaged by Phantoms and Skyhawks.

        Comment


        • #19
          Amur_Tiger Don't give up! There is whole bunch of arguments!

          USSR: We got S-75 to cover Shilkas.
          US: We got Phantoms with Shrike missiles to engage S-75.
          USSR:We got MiG-21 to engage Phantoms. Early F-4 didn't have cannons.
          US: We got Hawk missiles to shot down MiGs.
          USSR: We got Scuds to destroy Hawk sites.

          It can go on forever...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mashiach View Post
            The range of AGM-12 exceeds the firing range of ZSU-23 and ZSU-57. So these AA systems might have been effectively engaged by Phantoms and Skyhawks.
            And how are you detecting the ZSU-23 and ZSU-57 at those ranges? Magic? Also keeping in mind how they were aimed their firing range has relatively little to do with how vulnerable aircraft are to anti-aircraft fire. The firing aircraft has to follow the AGM-12 to aim it. This leaves them rather vulnerable to AA fire as they fly along the smoke trail. Also there were about 4x as many T-55s as there were AGM-12s because they were not intended as anti-tank weapons ( and to my knowledge not proven against a moving target ) but for strikes against infrastructure and the like.

            Not to mention the factors brought up by Mashiach.

            Like it or not there's no 'free lunch' in warfare where you get to harm the enemy without putting your own forces in danger while there is any semblance of technological parity.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Amur_Tiger View Post
              And how are you detecting the ZSU-23 and ZSU-57 at those ranges? Magic?
              Never heard of pelengation?

              Originally posted by Amur_Tiger View Post
              Also keeping in mind how they were aimed their firing range has relatively little to do with how vulnerable aircraft are to anti-aircraft fire. The firing aircraft has to follow the AGM-12 to aim it. This leaves them rather vulnerable to AA fire as they fly along the smoke trail.
              Still AGM-12 firing range was several times longer than those of 23mm and 57mm automatic cannons. Additionaly Phantoms could have used Shrike anti-radar missiles.

              Originally posted by Amur_Tiger View Post
              Also there were about 4x as many T-55s as there were AGM-12s because they were not intended as anti-tank weapons ( and to my knowledge not proven against a moving target ) but for strikes against infrastructure and the like.
              Let me describe you the doctrine one more time - Planes with lon-range missiles take out air defence then Helicopters with AGM-22 take out armour.

              Originally posted by Amur_Tiger View Post
              Not to mention the factors brought up by Mashiach.

              Like it or not there's no 'free lunch' in warfare where you get to harm the enemy without putting your own forces in danger while there is any semblance of technological parity.
              You forgot to say thank you
              Last edited by Mashiach; 03-01-2017, 09:17 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mashiach View Post

                Never heard of pelengation?
                ZSU-57 isn't radar guided and pelengation isn't suitable for targeting purposes only for detection purposes. Recall how the AMG-12 is aimed, using the Mk1 eyeball guiding the missile along the smoke-track.

                "It was developed as a result of experiences in the Korean War where US airpower had great difficulty in destroying targets which required precise aiming and were often heavily defended, such as bridges."

                Not designed for going after AA sites to begin with, could be used for such in a pinch but detection issues would dominate the engagement and more or less force the aircraft to get within range of the AA.

                Since you seem to agree that the fight in the sky turns into a fairly messy engagement what makes you so certain that the result of that ends up trumping the fairly massive superiority in land forces that the Soviets have?

                Comment


                • #23
                  One thing with early SEAD missile that I discover recently, most of them have to be programmed/configured before flight, on the ground to attack certain radar type. So that in flight, a wild weasel may be equipped to attack fan-song radar but will be almost unarmed against a Straight Flush.
                  The Standard ARM start to be programmable in flight in 69 only.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The F4 Phantom's went up against the MiG-21 over Vietnam and did fine.

                    The Israelis faced off against the Egyptians in the Sinai and their American kit did very well against the Soviet made armored vehicles (granted these were monkey models so it may not be the best comparison but it is the other comparison we have. It is also worth noting that since WWII there has never been a case were Russian tanks took on western ones and emerged victorious.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Negan View Post
                      The F4 Phantom's went up against the MiG-21 over Vietnam and did fine.

                      The Israelis faced off against the Egyptians in the Sinai and their American kit did very well against the Soviet made armored vehicles (granted these were monkey models so it may not be the best comparison but it is the other comparison we have.
                      Dude, dude, dude, stop posting BS and go inform yourself more. It's like discussing with somebody who learnt everything in videogames

                      The Syrian and Egyptians models were not monkey models. There were no monkey models at that time, tanks were simplier and with nothing especially privy. The thing came later when the armor layer composition, FCS and shells composition were more complex and more secret and also more expensive
                      The issue with Syrian and Egyptians armies were their tactical, doctrinal and operational ineptitude, not the equipment
                      The equipment inferiority was later true for GW1 and there, it was "monkey models" issue (combined with the Iraki forces ineptitude)


                      It is also worth noting that since WWII there has never been a case were Russian tanks took on western ones and emerged victorious.
                      Really ?
                      Go check how performed the T34/85 piloted by not-particularly-good Norks vs M24s
                      Or how many Centurions were lost by Israel in 1973 in tank to tank battles (see El Arish battle)
                      Or how many M47, M48, M60 were lost to T54-55-62 (and the reverse around) during Iran-Irak war (see operation Nasr for example)
                      How many western built tanks were lost to soviet built tanks (and the reverse around ) during the India-Pakistan wars

                      As for the Phantom vs Mig21, two birds, two different use and again it's useless to compare them without talking about crew training, logistic and overall lopsided air superiority on one side.

                      You are focusing way too much on equipment. Equipment doesn't win wars. Logistic, doctrines, training and industrial capacity do.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mordoror View Post

                        Dude, dude, dude, stop posting BS and go inform yourself more. It's like discussing with somebody who learnt everything in videogames

                        The Syrian and Egyptians models were not monkey models. There were no monkey models at that time, tanks were simplier and with nothing especially privy. The thing came later when the armor layer composition, FCS and shells composition were more complex and more secret and also more expensive
                        The issue with Syrian and Egyptians armies were their tactical, doctrinal and operational ineptitude, not the equipment
                        The equipment inferiority was later true for GW1 and there, it was "monkey models" issue (combined with the Iraki forces ineptitude)
                        Thanks for reinforcing my point and proving my argument for me. The IDF used western doctrine where as the Arabs had Soviet advisers granted they may not have listened to them all the time but they were there.




                        Really ?

                        Go check how performed the T34/85 piloted by not-particularly-good Norks vs M24s
                        Or how many Centurions were lost by Israel in 1973 in tank to tank battles (see El Arish battle)
                        Or how many M47, M48, M60 were lost to T54-55-62 (and the reverse around) during Iran-Irak war (see operation Nasr for example)
                        How many western built tanks were lost to soviet built tanks (and the reverse around ) during the India-Pakistan wars

                        As for the Phantom vs Mig21, two birds, two different use and again it's useless to compare them without talking about crew training, logistic and overall lopsided air superiority on one side.

                        You are focusing way too much on equipment. Equipment doesn't win wars. Logistic, doctrines, training and industrial capacity do.
                        Yes really.

                        The NKPA was driven to the Yalu
                        The IDF drove the Egyptians out of the Sinai for the second time in less than 10 years.
                        The Iraq-Iran War ended in stalemate.
                        Don't know much about the Indian-Pakistan Wars so I won't comment (you'll come up with some silly "you don't know much about any war" comment but oh well)

                        Well the two birds met over Vietnam so its the only comparison we have.

                        Equipment is a factor but it isn't the only one. It is hard to figure out how a war will turn out using simple rules.


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Negan View Post

                          Thanks for reinforcing my point and proving my argument for me. The IDF used western doctrine where as the Arabs had Soviet advisers granted they may not have listened to them all the time but they were there.
                          What point and what argument ? you were talking and focusing about hardware so far on this thread and all the other ones around. Wanna talk about tactics, strategy, operational doctrine. OK let's talk about it no prob.
                          BTW if your point is USA-WestStrong, you'll have to bring more palatable cookies

                          PS :yes there were soviet advisors, that doesn't mean that the Syrian and Egyptian army was on red army quality at any level/rank. Or do you wanna talk about the US formed-trained Iraki army vs ISIS or the US advised Malian army vs Ansar El Dine or the ANP/ANA (west trained, funded) vs Talibans or the KSA (west trained, advised and equiped) vs Houthis.

                          You know, sometimes being an advisor is like being a teacher in a retard classroom. You can sweat all you want, it's hopeless....






                          Yes really.

                          The NKPA was driven to the Yalu
                          The IDF drove the Egyptians out of the Sinai for the second time in less than 10 years.
                          The Iraq-Iran War ended in stalemate.
                          Don't know much about the Indian-Pakistan Wars so I won't comment (you'll come up with some silly "you don't know much about any war" comment but oh well)

                          Well the two birds met over Vietnam so its the only comparison we have.

                          Equipment is a factor but it isn't the only one. It is hard to figure out how a war will turn out using simple rules.
                          Wait a minute : you said that in western built tanks vs soviet built tank encounters after 45 that those last ones never emerged victorious. I provided you plenty of examples of battles where it was the case. What's the link with the outcome of the different wars where they were involved ? You know that tanks are not the only one fighting in a war, right ?

                          And the two birds met also above Sinai as well during Iran-Irak war so it's not the only comparison. But again comparing two birds mean taking in consideration crew qualities and overal environment. If your point is again to say that UShardwareBestAboveAll11!!, you'll have to find examples of said hardware used by same level quality crews with a C4I and number balance. Good luck with that. BTW when was the last time the USAF was engaged in an environment where it didn't have the whole air superiority at all levels from the beginning ?

                          That's why comparison of equipment is meaningless. Marginaly there could be differences of quality between well thought, well built stuff (i am discarding here the obvious shits like the Asad Babil monkey pile of crap)
                          Thing is that said equipments are also built with a doctrine in mind and if used out of those boundaries, may prove more crappy that it is in reality
                          Crew quality and training is also a major factor. For the record, youll find on the net a short story about a US opfor team on M1 beating hands down waves after waves of M1A1 (with better guns, FCS, sights and engines) manned by not seasoned crews.
                          And finally overall situation/environment are also a huge factor. A Mig21 or a F4II ambushed will die as easilly (and they did over Vietnam). Thing is that it is easier to ambush when you have complete controle of the sky by sheer number, logistic and C4I as well as better training.

                          In any cases (and knowing that claims are always disputed) VPAF Migs claimed by USA in air to air combat : 196 (including Mig 17, 19, 21)
                          VPAF claimed 103 F4 with an overall kill claim (all birds accounted and all nationalities concerned including south vienamese air force) of 319
                          Last edited by Mordoror; 06-01-2017, 01:05 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mordoror View Post

                            What point and what argument ? you were talking and focusing about hardware so far on this thread and all the other ones around. Wanna talk about tactics, strategy, operational doctrine. OK let's talk about it no prob.
                            BTW if your point is USA-WestStrong, you'll have to bring more palatable cookies

                            PS :yes there were soviet advisors, that doesn't mean that the Syrian and Egyptian army was on red army quality at any level/rank. Or do you wanna talk about the US formed-trained Iraki army vs ISIS or the US advised Malian army vs Ansar El Dine or the ANP/ANA (west trained, funded) vs Talibans or the KSA (west trained, advised and equiped) vs Houthis.

                            You know, sometimes being an advisor is like being a teacher in a retard classroom. You can sweat all you want, it's hopeless....
                            Keep in mind that many of the students in "retard classes" are really smart. Standardized testing just leaves them looking and feeling stupid at least in this country.

                            ISIS beat the Iraqi Army a good number times in 2014 but the Iraqis have made a come back. The Iraqis are retaking Mosul even as we speak and ISIS has lost control of its border with Turkey.








                            Wait a minute : you said that in western built tanks vs soviet built tank encounters after 45 that those last ones never emerged victorious. I provided you plenty of examples of battles where it was the case. What's the link with the outcome of the different wars where they were involved ? You know that tanks are not the only one fighting in a war, right ?

                            And the two birds met also above Sinai as well during Iran-Irak war so it's not the only comparison. But again comparing two birds mean taking in consideration crew qualities and overal environment. If your point is again to say that UShardwareBestAboveAll11!!, you'll have to find examples of said hardware used by same level quality crews with a C4I and number balance. Good luck with that. BTW when was the last time the USAF was engaged in an environment where it didn't have the whole air superiority at all levels from the beginning ?

                            That's why comparison of equipment is meaningless. Marginaly there could be differences of quality between well thought, well built stuff (i am discarding here the obvious shits like the Asad Babil monkey pile of crap)
                            Thing is that said equipments are also built with a doctrine in mind and if used out of those boundaries, may prove more crappy that it is in reality
                            Crew quality and training is also a major factor. For the record, youll find on the net a short story about a US opfor team on M1 beating hands down waves after waves of M1A1 (with better guns, FCS, sights and engines) manned by not seasoned crews.
                            And finally overall situation/environment are also a huge factor. A Mig21 or a F4II ambushed will die as easilly (and they did over Vietnam). Thing is that it is easier to ambush when you have complete controle of the sky by sheer number, logistic and C4I as well as better training.

                            In any cases (and knowing that claims are always disputed) VPAF Migs claimed by USA in air to air combat : 196 (including Mig 17, 19, 21)
                            VPAF claimed 103 F4 with an overall kill claim (all birds accounted and all nationalities concerned including south vienamese air force) of 319
                            I am talking about seeing the forest for the trees here. The DPRK failed to conqueror the ROK and would have been destroyed had the Chinese not sent in the PVA (did not use tanks)

                            The North Koreans were beaten to the Yalu and were only saved because of China
                            The Arabs lost the Six Day and Yom Kippur War
                            The Iraqi's achieved only a stalemate against Iran and would have been defeated if Reagan hadn't given them a bunch of cool stuff.

                            And the F4s came out on top in the Arab-Israeli Wars.... again. There have been a few times the US has fought without air cover - whenever it got cloudy (until it got the invention of terminal and stuff like that).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Keep in mind that many of the students in "retard classes" are really smart. Standardized testing just leaves them looking and feeling stupid at least in this country.

                              ISIS beat the Iraqi Army a good number times in 2014 but the Iraqis have made a come back. The Iraqis are retaking Mosul even as we speak and ISIS has lost control of its border with Turkey.
                              You'll writte anything in order to make your Westernstrong point right ?
                              Lurk more and try to read the feeling about western advisors training arab armies and come back trying to mitigate their ineptitude again. You have some board members who worked in such field. They'll give you good insights about how behaved their arab trainees.

                              I am talking about seeing the forest for the trees here. The DPRK failed to conqueror the ROK and would have been destroyed had the Chinese not sent in the PVA (did not use tanks)

                              The North Koreans were beaten to the Yalu and were only saved because of China
                              The Arabs lost the Six Day and Yom Kippur War
                              The Iraqi's achieved only a stalemate against Iran and would have been defeated if Reagan hadn't given them a bunch of cool stuff.

                              And the F4s came out on top in the Arab-Israeli Wars.... again.

                              No, you are not talking about the forest. War is not only done by MBTs. It involves infantry, artillery, birds, sometimes ships, C4I, logistics and training.
                              None of the finish results prove your point of Western 60s MBTs > Soviet 60s MBTs

                              As for the F4, it also failed quite a few times during Iran-Irak war. That doesn't make me writte that Mig21>F4. They are two different birds with their qualities and shortcomings.

                              There have been a few times the US has fought without air cover - whenever it got cloudy (until it got the invention of terminal and stuff like that).
                              Air superiority is not only related to air cover, you know.
                              EW, C4I, Space command and control, land control, radar stations network are also helping to achieve air superiority
                              But in any case, i am curious to have you find a single theatre of war where USA didn't had the air superiority/air domination post 1945. Just a single one.
                              Yes, it's a challenge

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                As I understand neither side had managed to introduce capable anti-satellite missile during the Cold War right?

                                On the other hand the satellites had lesser impact on combat communication, navigation and reconnaissance back then...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X