| Main Forum Page | Start new Thread | Edit your AD | Search ForumOnly a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Sunday, December 18, 2005 (2:55 PM)
Posted by SenorF (12) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: February 10, 2006 (2:31 AM) | Sukhoy, what most US conservatives don't realise is that in order to win a war effectively, you must achieve your goals there, you must have a population that supports the war enough to give you the means to win and most importantly of all, you must NEVER enter a war before you know you will win it. These are some of Sun Tzu's principles and every nation on earth adheres to them. In Vietnam, US politicians threw them completely out the window. They entered a war they didn't know they could win They lost the support of their population And they did not achieve anything, other then genocide Also, Cowboykiller, did you know that in air to air combat in Vietnam the USAF and US Navy had a 4 to 1 ratio? That is for every 1 North Vietnamese aircraft they shot down, North Vietnamese aircraft shot down 4 of theirs. Also, did you also know that USAF pilots have to spend a maximum of 4 years in the services. Their first year, they don't even fly, and so that is 3 years of flying. Russian pilots cannot leave until the Air Force lets them go. Their training is too expensive and too precious. The average Russian pilot has been flying 12 years, with Mig-31 pilots averaging over 20 years and Mig-29 pilots around 8. The average Russian pilot has had more time in a combat aircraft then 3 average USAF pilots. This is despite getting less flight time per year. |
|
Posted by jadeboy (44) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: February 12, 2006 (6:04 PM) | "Sukhoy, what most US conservatives don't realise is that in order to win a war effectively, you must achieve your goals there, you must have a population that supports the war enough to give you the means to win and most importantly of all, you must NEVER enter a war before you know you will win it.These are some of Sun Tzu's principles and every nation on earth adheres to them. In Vietnam, US politicians threw them completely out the window.They entered a war they didn't know they could winThey lost the support of their populationAnd they did not achieve anything, other then genocide" First, the american did think they CAN win (atleast in the beginning), and they had public support at the beginning, everyone thought the war was going to be won in 6 month, why not ? A backward, undevelop country. Unfortunately to quote Sun Tzu, the American make the mistake on not knowing and understanding the enemy. And the Vietnam war is a little more complex then you have quoted above. Read the thread "RE: Why Americans Lost Vietnam War?" "Also, Cowboykiller, did you know that in air to air combat in Vietnam the USAF and US Navy had a 4 to 1 ratio? That is for every 1 North Vietnamese aircraft they shot down, North Vietnamese aircraft shot down 4 of theirs." Don't spread information that you don't know. This is completely WRONG! You mean it's the other way around. Most of the US air shoot down was not by Air-to-Air, but by ground SAM and AAA. I have posted in the forum link to stats website about this. Unfortunately I have also not found anything from the USSR side. |
|
Posted by jadeboy (44) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: February 12, 2006 (6:38 PM) | "From my post you can see that I told about 2 strategies, right. About 17 days:Yes, too, for me it is hard to believe that, but at Discovery Channel I saw it. And think that channel TV told almost only about western military tech. Yes, again, it is hard to believe, but I saw it at TV, is not my invention! " I think you got this totally wrong. I watched alot of Discovery TV, what you mean is that the NATO would have all their air plane shoot down in 17 days! I remember hearding something like that. This does not mean they have LOSS the war. NO ONE has ever said that NATO/USA would lose the War in 17 days, that would just be a stupid statement. |
|
Posted by Sukhoy (488) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: February 12, 2006 (6:46 PM) | If you don't agree with me, so what are you heared about 17 days? I think if one country with aircraft fleet downed than the war are almost lost. |
|
Posted by jadeboy (44) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: February 12, 2006 (6:53 PM) | "If you don't agree with me, so what are you heared about 17 days?" I don't know remember that it was 17 days, but I do remember hearing that all the NATO aircraft would be shoot down in about the same time period, something close to 17 days. "I think if one country with aircraft fleet downed than the war are almost lost." Totally wrong! Look at the Vietnam war, Afghanistan war and the Iraq War. You still have to take the ground and control it. |
|
Posted by Sukhoy (488) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: February 12, 2006 (7:06 PM) | In Irak and Afghanistan there are not an army against to fight, there are the people, the civils. Irak and Afghanistan lost the war. |
|
Posted by JSF_fan (48) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: February 13, 2006 (10:53 PM) | Until I actually here about this 17 day rubbish I will just ignore it. I think it is total bullocks. |
|
Posted by Sukhoy (488) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: February 14, 2006 (4:45 AM) | Me too, I said it was to exagerated. But that's what I heard at Discovery Channel some time ago. |
|
Posted by SenorF (12) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: March 2, 2006 (8:22 PM) | 17 days sounds fairly reasonable for some periods in history. Not only did the USSR have a larger airforce then the combined NATO allies but the quality of their fighters usually surpassed their competitors. I mean we're talking about Su-27's vs F-15A's or Mig-29's vs F-16A's. The winner in both of those circumstances are obvious. Even Mig-21's can beat F-15's when they have tactical supremacy and if you outnumber your enemy you can easily gain that. As for the statistics from Vietnam; they are solid, they are taught to US fighter pilots and this is largely due to the fact that the Vietnamese airforce was that small that US pilots would very rarely engage a Vietnamese aircraft. Most who were shot down had spent their entire career escorting bombers without incident. Meanwhile the Vietnamese pilots were flying better planes and usually were only sent in when they had a better chance of winning. The ratio was 4 to 1 and while this includes US bombers, transports and helicopters this hardly makes up for the fact that the US lost more in aerial battles then a tiny nation like Vietnam. |
|
Posted by TruthHurts (10) Edit | RE: Only a few aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy Posted: March 5, 2006 (3:33 PM) | Its an easy question, the soviet union didnt build many carriers because they knew and still know they could never win an offensive war with the u.s. on the other hand the u.s. was preparing for an offensive war while the soviets where going to rely on winning a defensive war.Smart strategy on the soviet side ""and" kinda cowardly.Sorry. |
|
Main Forum Page | Start new Thread | Edit your AD | Search Forum Home | Book a Flight | Flight Prices | Special Offers! | Price Guarantee | Price a Flight | - Order Process | Calendar | Zero-G Flights | Gift Certificates | Hotels | Spb. HotelsWhy FlyMiG.Com? | Aircraft | In the Media | Contact Us | Questions | Flight Stories | About Us | MAKS 2003 | MAKS 2005 | Updates Avia X-change | Aviation Forum | Cool Stuff | Affiliates | Mail Lists | iPod | PostCards | Search | Links | Pilots
| Honda CRX Si | Manuals | | | Copyright © FlyMiG.Com 2002 - 2024 |