twilight2000-digest Thursday, May 13 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 037 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) Re: Alternative US Timeline Soviet/Russian Aviation Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline on a change of subject: asia Re: on a change of subject: asia Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 00:22:53 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline - -----Original Message----- From: Mad Mike To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Tuesday, 11 May 1999 17:10 Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline >Matthew E Henkel wrote: >> for much of the 80's and early 90's the mig-29 was seen as a superior >> threat to us designs, but when the luftwaffe incorporated the DDR's air >> force (and its 29's) the west was given a great insight into the design. >> while intelligence does support that >> mig29 is a very good plane - it is not the equal of a 30 year old us >> design. (GDW came to the same conclusion in the Desert Shield Factbook). During the late 1980s Russia had mostly MiG-29s in East Germany. Meanwhile NATO had a wing of USAF F-15s, and mostly F-16s with close range AIM-9 Sidewinders. The USAF would have flown in more F-15s, but Russia would have flown in Mig-29s, Su-27s, etc. The short range of the MiG-29 was more than enough for Europe. Mad Mike replied: > In many ways it is. The AA-11 Archer so far is probably the best >short ranged missile with the possible exception of the Pyhton 4. The >ASRAAM and AIM-9X won't see frontline service on western fighter >aircraft >until the enxt decade. Along with a good thrust to weight ratio, turn, >and high angle of attack abilties the pulse doppler radar still isn't >much worse. Where Soviet a/c suffer is lack of processing capability >so a lot of target info/IDing that US pilots take for granted must come >from input from ground control officers especially in the air defense >role. I have the URL for an excellent analysis of the MiG-29, if anyone's interested. As for poor Arabian pilots, we don't hear much about the success's. Syria v Israel in 1981. One fight had two MiG-25s head to head with 2 F-15s. One F-15 and one MiG-25 were shot down. And the Iraq's shot down an USN F-18 on the 20th January 1991 (again a MiG-25). Israel claims for 1982 were 88:0, Syria claims around 20 Israeli kills, and admits around 60 own aircraft lost. The claim most heard is off course, the Israeli. Two things that will/have reduced the importance of pilot skill in the close range knifefight. Advanced missiles like the AA-11, Python 4, AIM-9X, ASRAAM and helmet mounted sights. The AIM-9L/M can be fired 30 degrees(^) off the nose of an aircraft. The AA-11 45^, Python4 60^, AIM-9X 90^, and the ASRAAM has inertial guidance enabling it to fired _behind_ the aircraft. Dutch, USMC, USN, USAF, UK pilots have flown against German MiG-29s, and the AA-11/HMS is said to have surprising effectiveness. The radar is a hard to use effectively (too much manual switch setting) and the AA-10 Alamo missiles are said to be equal to to 'late model AIM-7 Sparrows' (AIM-7M). The other important factor is a missile with an active seeker. The AIM-120 has been very effective in service. Russia has a similar missile, the AA-12 Adder. Its been around since 1993, but hasn't actually been integrated to any service fighter (should be in service this year on Malaysian MiG-29s). China and India are also in line for the AA-12. AIM-7M has a 35% hit rate in 1991. The AIM-120 has a much higher rating, and is the first truely reliable medium range missile. A few modifications and the MiG-29 would have been AA-12 capable. US pilots are said to be worried about the AIM-120/AA-12 in enemy hands. It means that a less skilled pilot has a much better chance. In a straight F-15/AIM-120 v MiG-29/AA-10 the AIM-120 is more accurate, faster and longer ranged. The AA-12 is comparable to the AIM-120 and evens things up. NATO believed that any Central Front air war would have involved a lot more close range dogfighting, involving more aircraft than any Iraq/Yugoslavian situation today. >> I agree that russian design philosophy has it's merits but i still would >> not chose russian equipment to defend my little country. > > For the Soviets where manpower has always been cheaper and the >prospect of many troops not being able to read and speak Russian (there >was no "official" language of the USSR) it was their only choice. Mass >has a quality all of its own and traditionally Russia overwhelmed their >enemy through sheer weight of numbers. Again it only works for countries >that place numerical force above all else. > > > > Mad Mike Same goes for the T-72/80. The M1A1HA is better. The Soviet Union had 15,000+ T-80s, along with lots more T-72s. Okay the M1 has a longer reach, but most of the terrain in Germany (not sure about our T2K Poland setting) typical tank v tank ranges are 1500 metres. The Iraqi's however.... Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:09:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline agreed!!! Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy On Mon, 10 May 1999, Mad Mike wrote: > SharpInt@aol.com wrote: > > > > The middle eastern conflicts, place an under-trained, low-paid, under-fed > > arab against > > our fighter pilots who are highly-trained, well-paid, and can get the food > > they need. I mean for crying out loud, the Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard > > surrendered to CNN! > > > Never underestimate the Arabs especially Arab nationalism. Nasser > of Egypt survived an attempt by the British, French and Israelis to boot > him out of office and the 1967 Six Day War where the IDF took the Sinai. > Saddam Huessein is still power which is more than can be said about > Thatcher, Major, or Goerge Bush. In Syria Hafez al Assad has Lebanon > and managed to crush anybody remotely a threat to him razing Hama > to prove his point. It is fundamentally dangerous for people > especially the national leadership of Western states with Middle > East interests to ignore or belittle their counterparts because > chances are if a war does happen one siad is going into a fight that > may not go exactly his way and he will wonder why. > In the end though in a region of authoritarian to totalitarian > regimes headed by strongmen dictators survive in this region by > putting his power based above all else and checking the ambitions of > generals and other party leaders. Not effective in terms of developing > an army that can conduct itself brillantly at an operational level > where they can maneuver and kill the opposition through shock but > at least the president is not going to be out of his palace due > to coup d'etat. > > > > Mad Mike > > > > > -- > "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the > only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:19:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) > >consider that despite the reliability of soviet mechanics - that they > >still have vastly inferior gun performance. as a metter of fact the > >t72/80 auto loader - ported from the bmp-1, has a nast tendancy of trying > >to load the gunners arm. and the cramped crew quarters of the tank > >reduces the crews surviavability after being hit. these are facts that i > >have seen in numerous sources (janes usni etc.). > > > The autoloaders on the T-72 and T-80 are different designs. The gunners arm > thing was resolved years ago. thanks, i didn't have very detailed info on he t80, mine just said that it shared most of its design with the 77. > >it is this type of "inferiority" that leds me to to agree with tom clancy > >(who i actually think is quite a schmuck), when he says that russia is a > >very good 3rd world army. > > > > > >Matthew Eric Henkel > >Hospitalman (E-3) > >United States Navy > > Tom Clancy's early work was excellent. Most recent techno-thrillers I've > read have been very ordinary (from any author). > > Peter Grining agreed. i find his early work to be excellent also, and his non fiction (marine, submarine, fighter wing etc.) are very excellent resources. it does seem that he has started to lose a bit of his freshness. although i am told that rainbow six is good, i can' t say for myself - having not yet ventured to read it. to all: a very satisfactory discussion (with much passion i think!) - thanks. very enjoyable. Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:28:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > >Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > >> for much of the 80's and early 90's the mig-29 was seen as a superior > >> threat to us designs, but when the luftwaffe incorporated the DDR's air > >> force (and its 29's) the west was given a great insight into the design. > >> while intelligence does support that > >> mig29 is a very good plane - it is not the equal of a 30 year old us > >> design. (GDW came to the same conclusion in the Desert Shield Factbook). > > > During the late 1980s Russia had mostly MiG-29s in East Germany. Meanwhile > NATO had a wing of USAF F-15s, and mostly F-16s with close range AIM-9 > Sidewinders. The USAF would have flown in more F-15s, but Russia would have > flown in Mig-29s, Su-27s, etc. The short range of the MiG-29 was more than > enough for Europe. > a very good poit peter, the mig is certainly a dangerous plane - but it could be so much better. if upgraded with in-flight refueling capability and something other than ballistic bombsights, as well as some fine tuning to the ergonomics of the design (radar for example) i'd venture to say that it could out-class the f16 and f15 designs. if the mig29 were to be utilized in an invasion of the u.s. i think many of its short comings, especially range, would be a serious concern for the russians. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:48:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) in case any one is interested - i just read a detail on the mig 29 that i found amusing (i had forgotten about it). the Mig 29 doesn't have in-flight refueling capability - it has a range on 810nm. it can be fitted with external an external 1600L drop tank (adding around 234nm to its range). but if can't use its 30mm gun when the drop tank is fitted! it's these little russian jems that make me smile. i'm not sure if this trait is shared by later model 29's (my information doesn't specify). but i still think its pretty cute. Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 14:16:20 EDT From: SharpInt@aol.com Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline In a message dated 5/11/99 1:19:44 AM Central Daylight Time, mehst31+@pitt.edu writes: << and i wasn't refering to the gulf war so much as iran/arab hostilities. >> Like the Iran-Iraq war? Where the Irainian troops with soviet weapons stalemated the Iraqis with some soviet some US equiptment for 8 years? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 14:18:49 EDT From: SharpInt@aol.com Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline In a message dated 5/11/99 1:24:24 AM Central Daylight Time, mehst31+@pitt.edu writes: << incidently, isn't russia the place were people have to wait in line to get toilet paper and bread - is that what you call a well-fed military? >> The reason the civilians had to wait in line for that, is because the military was given first priority. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:32:01 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) - -----Original Message----- From: Matthew E Henkel To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Wednesday, 12 May 1999 2:10 Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) >in case any one is interested - i just read a detail on the mig 29 that i >found amusing (i had forgotten about it). the Mig 29 doesn't have >in-flight refueling capability - it has a range on 810nm. it can be >fitted with external an external 1600L drop tank (adding around 234nm to >its range). but if can't use its 30mm gun when the drop tank is fitted! >it's these little russian jems that make me smile. > >i'm not sure if this trait is shared by later model 29's (my information >doesn't specify). but i still think its pretty cute. > >Matthew Eric Henkel >Hospitalman (E-3) >United States Navy Late model MiG-29s can fire the 30mm with the centrline tank in place. A scab-on inflight refuelling system is in the process of being fitted to Malaysian MiG-29s. Unlike the US, refuelling of tactical aircraft is a recent innovation (Su-24 on). The bombing system has also been improved, the problem with any Russian aircraft today is money to fit all this gear. The MiG-29SMT project is going ahead (very slowly) fixing most of the problems mentioned, including more range than the baseline F-15/16/18. (1210nm on internal fuel) As you say Matthew, nothing wrong with the Russian idea side of things. Its the mass production and little quirks that let Russian designs down. As for invading the US the Su-27 has plenty of range (2000nmish) Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:21:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > and i wasn't refering to the gulf war so much as iran/arab > hostilities. Does anyone have the actual numbers for aircraft lost in action in the Iran-Iraq conflict? It was my understanding that one of the major reasons that many Iranian US-designed aircraft survived was because the Iranians could not get most of them into combat (maintenance problems on a Titan scale). I would caution against over-weighing the results of air combat in the Middle East, as invariably, the pilots involved were not necessarily comparable. I have no doubt that in a war that pits large numbers of F-15/16 aircraft vs. MiG-29/Su-27 aircraft, that if the pilots are comparable in quality, that the F-15/16 force will face very significant casualties in operations, even if they do best the MiGs in the end. S2000 _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:33:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Soviet/Russian Aviation > i also tend to think of the soviets as an under-trained, > poorly-fed military as well. > > the great soviet military juggernaut - was a reagan era myth. > read some books published in this decade and see what i mean. With the notable exception of aviation. Yes, Russia would be hard pressed to provide any sizeable force at this point to oppose a full scale Western air offensive. However, they undoubtably have some very professional and capable pilots, piloting very capable combat aircraft. More importantly, the elite russian pilots are well versed on how to apply the unique strengths of their aircaft designs against the weaknesses of American/European designs. I have no doubt that NATO would score an absolute victory in all-out combat with the Russians, however, I would also expect these small Russian elite forces to take quite a bite out of some of NATO's strike packages, as well as mount some daring counter strikes. A note on Russian Aviation: Another common myth about the Soviet designs is that most of them were mere copies of Western equiptment (be it in form or in concept). Many still believe that the Su-24 was just an F-111 copy, the Tu-160 a copy of the B-1, and that the MiG-29 and Su-27 are just copies (in concept, not form) of the F-16 and F-15 respectively. What is not so well published is the ingenuity of Soviet aircraft designers in developing unique and ingenuous solutions to problems, sometimes with varying degrees of success. S2000 _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:53:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline actually the iraqi's had made significant advances into iran. this territory was ceded back to iran shortly before the war. Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy On Tue, 11 May 1999 SharpInt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/99 1:19:44 AM Central Daylight Time, > mehst31+@pitt.edu writes: > > << > and i wasn't refering to the gulf war so much as iran/arab hostilities. > >> > Like the Iran-Iraq war? > > Where the Irainian troops with soviet weapons stalemated the Iraqis with some > soviet some US equiptment for 8 years? > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 23:04:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline actually the politicians recieved the best treatment. soldiers did fare better under the USSR than the average worker but not by much - and they were still poorly paid when looked at from an international perspective. the lack of supplies was not so much caused by the soldiers getting everything they wanted/needed - they most certainly did not - it was caused by trying to supply a massive ammount of troops. but i was focusing more on the russian military now - were they are one of the worst kept militaries in the world - very poor moral, poorly trained and poorly fed - i would argue more so than even the iraqi's during the gulf - but that is a matter of perspective. i forget how the subject of feeding troops was arrived at - and the subject has lost its appeal to me - if you wish to consider the iraqis as bumbling, incompetent starving thugs and the russians as a well fed fighting machine - go ahead, i have lost interest in the argument. Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy On Tue, 11 May 1999 SharpInt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/99 1:24:24 AM Central Daylight Time, > mehst31+@pitt.edu writes: > > << > incidently, isn't russia the place were people have to wait in line to get > toilet paper and bread - is that what you call a well-fed military? > >> > The reason the civilians had to wait in line for that, is because the > military was given first priority. > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 23:11:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline On Tue, 11 May 1999, Josh Baumgartner wrote: > I would caution against over-weighing the results of air combat > in the Middle East, as invariably, the pilots involved were not > necessarily comparable. > > I have no doubt that in a war that pits large numbers of F-15/16 > aircraft vs. MiG-29/Su-27 aircraft, that if the pilots are > comparable in quality, that the F-15/16 force will face very > significant casualties in operations, even if they do best the > MiGs in the end. > > S2000 a very good point that had been neglected to mention. when i claimed that the f-16 and the f-15 were superior to the Mig-29 (when put into an artficial tactical comparison) i mean to say that with equally trained pilots the f-16/f-15 can be EXPECTED to win. this is one of those wonderful little intelligence words that would mean very little to the pilot flying that falcon/eagle. it worth is limited to intelligence and means that the probability of the falcon or eagle downing the mig (as opposed to the converse) is better that 50%. matt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 23:32:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: on a change of subject: asia i had, the other day mentioned that i was working on collecting info on the militaries of asian (specifically japan, taiwan (RoC) and my nemesis the PRC). in a very happy little discovery i was able to find a very rare piece of intel (at leat it has eluded me for some time). I was able to get a taiwanese forces order of battle, including equipment info and the like. this is available from the united states naval institute (USNI) - www.periscope.usni.com/demo/nations/asia/taiwan also i was able to get rank insignia charts (icing for the cake) for the PLA, PLAAF, PLA-N (ick) the royal thai army, the japanese self defense forces (ground, air, maritime) as well as branch insignia for the japanese ground self defense forces and the royal thai army (finally pictures to go with the bangkok supplement!) info on the PLA/PLA-N/PLA-AF is available from the chinese military digest, www.gsprint.com/cmd also available at this site is a map of the PRC military regions and a rank insigna chart. thai and japanese stuff i have is in hard copy. but i'm going to try and get it up on a website - i'll let you know when i do. also got a slightly dated database (hardcopy only) of the personal weapons (up to mortars) of nearly every country on the face of the planet (it's got gabbon for christ'd sake!). - i'll try to get that up as well. an order of battle of the F16J fighter squadrons of the JASDF (including the japanese aggressor squadron!). - i haven't translated the rest of the info (mostly greaned from the japanese defense agency yearbook. trivia note - Japan is the largest owner-operator of the F-15 (locally produced by mitsubishi) aside from the US, and the ownly country with a license! finally (one of my favs) i was able to get a bunch of data (including areally cool schematic) of the taiwanese A-1 Ching Kou fighter and the japanese F-2 (FSX project production designation) fighter. Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:59:43 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: on a change of subject: asia - -----Original Message----- From: Matthew E Henkel To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Wednesday, 12 May 1999 13:54 Subject: on a change of subject: asia >i had, the other day mentioned that i was working on collecting info on >the militaries of asian (specifically japan, taiwan (RoC) and my nemesis >the PRC). Another good link: News and comparisons of PRC and RoC: http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/military.shtml Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:24:37 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline - -----Original Message----- From: Matthew E Henkel To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Wednesday, 12 May 1999 13:35 Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline >On Tue, 11 May 1999, Josh Baumgartner wrote: > >> I would caution against over-weighing the results of air combat >> in the Middle East, as invariably, the pilots involved were not >> necessarily comparable. >> >> I have no doubt that in a war that pits large numbers of F-15/16 >> aircraft vs. MiG-29/Su-27 aircraft, that if the pilots are >> comparable in quality, that the F-15/16 force will face very >> significant casualties in operations, even if they do best the >> MiGs in the end. >> >> S2000 > >a very good point that had been neglected to mention. when i claimed that >the f-16 and the f-15 were superior to the Mig-29 (when put into an >artficial tactical comparison) i mean to say that with equally trained >pilots the f-16/f-15 can be EXPECTED to win. this is one of those >wonderful little intelligence words that would mean very little to the >pilot flying that falcon/eagle. it worth is limited to intelligence and >means that the probability of the falcon or eagle downing the mig (as >opposed to the converse) is better that 50%. > >matt Annual flying hours per year (1997): Albania 10-15 Australia 175-200 Canada 210 Cuba <50 Most West European countries 150-180 Most East European countries 30-50 Finland 150 India 240 Iraq 60 Israel 190 Japan 150 Jordan 180 Kuwait 210 Libya 85 North Korea 30 Pakistan 210 PRC (China) 110 Russia 40 Sweden 110-140 Taiwan 180 UAE 110 UK 200-210 USA 240 So a US pilot spends 20 hours per month flying, a Russian pilot 3 1/3.... Can not find how many hours the Russians were flying in the late 1980s. From the late 1970s Russians training started improving. By the early 1980s the West perception of Russian pilots was unrealistic. By the late 1980s (after Afghanistan) units of the 16th Air Army (East Germany) were at least equal in equipment to NATO, had numerical superiority, although the pilots were not flying the same number of hours. An experienced pilot, maintaining proficiency needs less hours than training a new pilot. The hours listed do not give the whole story, it's what the pilots do in the air. Chinese pilots are said to practice very safe flying to the point of not flying realistic combat profiles. Canada, Australia, UK and US air forces all have instructress at squadron level ('Top Gun', etc) whom specialise in air combat. However it can not be said a pilot in the USAF (240 hours) is twice as good as a Swedish pilot (110-140). Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:49:44 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > actually the politicians recieved the best treatment. soldiers did fare > better under the USSR than the average worker but not by much - and they > were still poorly paid when looked at from an international perspective. > the lack of supplies was not so much caused by the soldiers getting > everything they wanted/needed - they most certainly did not - it was > caused by trying to supply a massive ammount of troops. but i was > focusing more on the russian military now - were they are one of the worst > kept militaries in the world - very poor moral, poorly trained and poorly > fed - i would argue more so than even the iraqi's during the gulf - but > that is a matter of perspective. > > i forget how the subject of feeding troops was arrived at - and the > subject has lost its appeal to me - if you wish to consider the iraqis as > bumbling, incompetent starving thugs and the russians as a well fed > fighting machine - go ahead, i have lost interest in the argument. > True Story; While visiting the Black Sea country of Bulgaria I had an evening long conversation with some Naval officers. The subject came up of life before the collapse of Communism. He related that they thought they as military had it pretty good in comparison to the rest of the masses. Discounts on goods, preferential housing, and a "good-ole boy" network of sorts. That is until the Russians left and went home and residences came open (called compounds or villages). Then the Bulgarians saw Sauna's pools, Jacuzzis, large gardens (with better plumbing than some towns), wine cellars, houses with large shoe racks and walk-in closets, two car garages, not too mention large single family homes (not a common thing in Bulgaria atleast). The Village was occupied by Communist party Russians. Non-party Russians had nice place also just not as luxurious. When I visited Romania, I asked and got a similar story. Same in Albania. Online in conversations with a Polish girl, and I guy from former E. Germany they agree. As for the Military in general being under paid, It was a conscript Army, and after having personal dealings with Greek, German and Norwegian conscripts they don't get paid that well or have very good standards of living either. As for the quality of their equipment, after the west ended up with so much of it after 91'. I don't recall anyone saying boy this is a piece of crap. Just that it was different and in most cases simpler. Speculation; So, I've come to believe it had to do with party status, not necessarily government or military position. Most bureaucrats and senior military leadership were party members, yet not all. Senior party members probably lived like Hefner. Opinion; So knowing what I know now I "think" if the Russians attacked before say 82-84 they probably would have won. After that 85-88 no way. Beyond that they would have had to go nuclear to save their butts. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:59:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline On Wed, 12 May 1999, Peter wrote: > The hours listed do not give the whole story, it's what the pilots do in the > air. Chinese pilots are said to practice very safe flying to the point of > not flying realistic combat profiles. Canada, Australia, UK and US air > forces all have instructress at squadron level ('Top Gun', etc) whom > specialise in air combat. However it can not be said a pilot in the USAF > (240 hours) is twice as good as a Swedish pilot (110-140). > > Peter Grining Also i have recently found that the Nihon Koku Jietai (Japanese Air Self Defense Force - JASDF) has an agressor/air combat instruction squadron, the Hiko Kyodotai based at Nyutabaru AB. matt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:13:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline On Wed, 12 May 1999, Dwight Looney wrote: > > Opinion; > So knowing what I know now I "think" if the Russians attacked before say > 82-84 they probably would have won. After that 85-88 no way. Beyond that > they would have had to go nuclear to save their butts. agreed. thanks for the personal insight - fills in a lot of the details that the books and documentaries can't. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:34:02 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline >From: Matthew E Henkel > >i also tend to think of the soviets as an under-trained, poorly-fed >military as well. > >the great soviet military juggernaut - was a reagan era myth. read some >books published in this decade and see what i mean. Yes, but it is usually better to overestimate an enemy's capabilities than underestimate them. A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:23:07 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > First off, let me say that any weapon is an effective weapon. But weapons systems are developed due to doctrine- on a tactical and opreational level as much as the way one fights is due to the introduction of new weapons systems. The Soviets have a lot of manpower but they were unwilling or unable to train them to what Western armies consider a high standard. There's a limit in what a solider can do especially when he goes directly into his unit with absolutely no boot camp to adjust him to harsh realities or give him a background in operating very complicated weapons systems. Soviet officers are different but in addition to being the leaders they have become the technicians. > for example the M1 abrams has a better than 50% to hit probability at a > range of 2000 m at a ground speed of 30kph. the t72 and similar t80 are > hard pressed to but a shell over 1500m with any accuracy AT A DEAD STOP. > that is very important on the battlefield. But the T-72- like the T-62- was a product of the Ural design bureau and was never meant to face the latest generation of ueberpanzers that the West cranked out. That job was the T-80 with its gas turbine powertrain and designed from the onset to use tube launched ATGMs and were fitted with reactive armor before the T-72. Nowadays with the availability of Western electronics Russian tanks can be fitted to a high standard in terms of fire control... > consider that despite the reliability of soviet mechanics - that they > still have vastly inferior gun performance. as a metter of fact the > t72/80 auto loader - ported from the bmp-1, has a nast tendancy of trying > to load the gunners arm. and the cramped crew quarters of the tank > reduces the crews surviavability after being hit. these are facts that i > have seen in numerous sources (janes usni etc.). T-64 and BMP-1 both used an autoloader where rounds were stowed in a vertical position. This is the fact why many BMPs have the autoloader disabled for the 73mm Grom gun and rounds are loaded by hand. The T-64 was worse since the rounds were upright but the charges were horizontal along the turret floor. The Uralvagon KB went for a more simple solution of the carousel loader which has proven reliable enough just not too survivable against anti-tank mines and shots under the turret ring... Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:28:07 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Peter wrote: > > Possibly the best analysis of this situation I've ever heard. Why do the > 'professional' politicians get it wrong all the time? Bravado and self interest IMNSHO. In Western democracies elected officials are concerned about their jobs especially in parliamentary states. after a prime minister isn't going to be that if it seems like he's screwing the pooch. In republics little bit different but elected presidents do want to come back for a second term. A short term mentality where short term results and good polls cuts into strategy- where a country will be not just in five weeks or five years but five decades. This isn't an advocation of turning into some banana republic authoritarian regimes turn into despotic nepotism where the power of the leadership is jealously guarded and shared only with cohorts. Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #37 ************************************