oh dear.....

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Navyman RE:oh dear..... 11/13/2001 2:27:08 PM

Actually, I have a problem with someone coming in after they have read something and fain knowledge. What I find funny, is after someone has had their argument shredded they run away from it and act as if they meant to say something other then their actual words said. Your words: ?The Soviets were never good with a blue water navy? Where'd you get that load of rubbish from? Whenever you hear tosh like that stated categorically the first thing you should ask is 'what are the facts'. Got anything to back that up?? Well I backed up the statement even though I did not make it originally. Your Words: Russia has many maritime interests it must protect with a blue-water navy and the navy provides a (huge part of the nuclear deterrent). It can also use the navy to deny access to waters it cannot itself control. [Emphasis added] I showed how not only was the Soviet and Russian Navy not capable of large scale global operation, but refuted the claim that the Soviet Fleet ever made up a huge part of their nuclear deterrence both as the Soviet Union, and now as Russia. Next you tried to rebuild your argument by listing their subs, trying to have that as proof, of your argument without even understanding what the boats and ship could do. Then you made a claim that their smattering of remaining boomers once again forms their basis for a large-scale naval nuclear force. Once again I refuted your statement and answer every question you put forth with those facts you were crying for in the beginning. How did you respond? Rather then admitting your error, you now make statements which you claim as facts, pretend that you did not start this, nor that you continued it, and run away from the original issue. As for your facts, Actually they did use T-72?s BMP/BMD-3?s in Afghanistan, (Frontline Equipment) they just took their best equipment with them when they left. They also used T-54/55 T-62 and BMP/BMD 1?s and 2?s Although the BMP/BMD and T-62 were not built in the 1950?s they were actually built in the early 1960?s, 63 I think, however, they were designed in the late 1950?s. Oh here is a partial list of 1950?s systems that were in use either the 80?s or later. Golf 2 introduced March 1958 Stricken 1985 November class introduced 1957 last one stricken in 1992 Foxtrot class Introduced 1958 there remains 3 in service Whiskey class introduced 1951 were stricken in the mid eighties. Zulu V commissioned 1957, stricken 1990 Sverdlov class cruiser the first ones were laid down actually in 1948, that one wasn?t stricken until 1988. others in this class remained in service until 1994. Kildin class Guided Missile Destroyer all of them commissioned in 1958 last striken in 1991 Kotlin class Destroyer 1954 stricken 1992 Mig 21 used in the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and was first seen in 1954 Su-15 Flagon built in the 1950?s finally removed in 1992 from service An-12 CUB built in 1957, still in use. AN-2 Colt (A Biplane design) introduced in 1947, was used during their war in Afghanistan Mi-4 HOUND Started production in 1950?s was used throughout the eighties. Mi-6 HOOK Started in 1957, finally withdrawn in the early nineties. PT-76 Amphibious amour unit introduced in 1952, and still in limited use T-54/55 developed in 1954, and oddly enough is still used by Russia in a limited capacity This is my last long post to you, since you obviously have nothing to add but rhetoric, and after demanding facts, and being shown them you do not have the courage to admit that you were wrong, but rather try to change the topic to avoid the truth.

Quote Reply

sigh RE:oh dear..... 11/13/2001 7:26:18 PM

How did you refute that the Navy made up a significant/huge part of the nuclear deterrent exactly? By denigrating the earliest Soviet boomers and dismissing even the latest ones (Delta III, Delta IV, Typhoon)? No T-72s and BMD-3s were never used in Afghanistan. In fact, the BMD-3 was introduced a year after the Afghan war ended (1990). Only T-62s were used by the Soviets in Afghanistan. Thats fact. T-62s received many field modifications for service in Afghanistan (applique armor mostly). Also, one thing you forget is that you contended that the Soviets used UNALTERED 50s tech. Bullcrap. You include ships, but if you remember, I said Russian/ Soviet ARMY. The original MiG-21F-13 is a far cry from the latest MiG-21bis FISHBED-L/N used in Afghanistan. The original Su-15 FLAGON interceptor was a far cry from the Su-15TM FLAGON-E in use up until 1992. An-12 CUB: totally supplanted by the Il-76 (just as the C-141 was intended to supplant the C-130) until it was realized turboprop transports were better for some tasks than jets. Used in limited numbers, mostly for special missions. Not a front line cargo plane. Being replaced by the An-70. An-2 COLT: hahaha used in Afghanistan? For what, crop dusting? Mi-6 HOOK: supplanted by Mi-26 HALO. Not front line for many years. PT-76: the *first* version was 1952. The PT-76B was a far superior model, introduced in the 60s. In use in limited capacity in Chechnya by MVD (who get lots of pensioned off Russian Army equipment, ie they're the ones who use the T-62 in Chechnya) T-54/55: yup still in use. Did you know the JS-2 tank was officially removed in 1994? Do you think just because it was officially removed in 1994 it was still in front line service and expected to face down an Abrams? I dont see the point of saying this or that 50s tech (which isnt true anyway) was still 'in service' with the Soviets. You ignored my point that all of this stuff has been supplanted by much newer stuff, and in large numbers. Its just Soviet doctrine to keep something that works. Why scrap it if it costs nothing to keep it (they're in storage.) and if it wasnt for all this old crap in storage, what would the Northern Alliance be fighting with? Quite frankly I dont know what your problem is. I think youre disappointed that I refused to engage in some US/ Soviet pissing contest.

Quote Reply

Navyman RE:oh dear.....Dismissied 11/13/2001 8:16:37 PM

In my excitement I did misspeak with the BMD-3 (at least I can admit when I am wrong) but that does not change anything, of what I said, might I recommend that you read some more on the Soviet war in Afghanistan, they did in fact have T-72?s there, and their best amour units, particularly as they began loosing forces. As I Said, the majority of their amour, was designed in the fifties, and introduced in the early sixties. Has it been supplemented, yes, but that would be like us using Patton tanks along with our M1-A1. As for your ?pissing contest? looks to me like you have, because you can not admit that you are wrong. Alas this has become boring so I am not even going to waste my time with you any further. Oh P.S. Since you cannot do the math, here you go. ?The Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF) constitute the Soviets' premier military service. Created in 1959 to control all long-range, land-based missiles with a range exceeding 1,000 kilometers, the SRF plays the dominant role in the Soviet strategic forces, controlling over 6,400 of the Soviets' 10,000 strategic warheads.? (Soviet Military Power 1988 Defense Intelligence Agency.) In the 1987 report, the total of Soviet SLBMs was around 900. This is why the Soviets/Russia never had the true triad structure as we do. They would switch between neglect of bombers, and neglect of their Sub fleet. Their Bombers were left hanging during the sixties, and early seventies, but by 1983 they actually had more Strategic bombers then we did. To this day ground-based weapons make up over 2/3rds of their force. As their fleet sits and rusts away waiting to be scraped.

Quote Reply

jeez RE:oh dear.....Dismissied 11/14/2001 4:04:08 AM

fine if you wont reply dont reply, but it seems as though you missed the point I was trying to bring across when talking about boomers: its not about numbers in comparison with the strategic rocket forces. The reason why boomers are so important and remain so is that there is the possibility that you could lose all/nearly all of your land based missiles if theres a successful first-strike against you. Your boomers are the insurance ... they cant be knocked out in a first strike and for the Soviet Navy, from the original Delta SSBN onwards, they didn't even need to leave their guarded bastions (ie blunder into US SONUS) to launch their MIRV-equipped SLBMs. With the large amount of Deltas, Delta IIs (well only four Delta IIs), Delta IIIs, Delta IVs, and the Typhoons; the Soviet Union was assured of causing unacceptable damage to the USA in the case of a successful first strike. Thats my point. Your point about the strategic bombers in 1983 is interesting ... the Soviets strategic air arm was always the weakest of the Soviet nuclear 'triad' numerically, but the Tu-95MS and Tu-160 equipped with the AS-15 KENT changed things, but no more than say almost 100 Bear-Hs were built, and only around 30 Blackjacks. I suppose you're including the Tu-22M Backfire though. You also have (in the latest generation) Sierras and Akulas prowling off the US coastline equipped with SS-N-21 SAMPSONs (Granat cruise missile, nuclear equipped). These are not noisy, and are hard to detect. Dont respond if you dont feel the need, but just thought id reiterate that the boomers are not about math. They cant be eliminated is why they're valuable, and an essential part of the nuclear detterent during the Cold War, for both sides. Your comment about the Russian Navy rusting ... I dont see why its relevant. I totally agree, the Russian Navy is underfunded and wayyyy smaller. Still, the signs of recovery are there, and I think the worst is over. I think by 2010 we'll see a much more effective Russian Navy, albeit smaller and whose goal is no longer to challenge USN might.

Quote Reply

dmitry_kalika@yahoo.com RE:oh dear..... 5/15/2002 12:25:48 PM

There were enough T-72 used during Afghanistan war!

Quote Reply

reserva120@hotmail.com RE:oh dear..... 5/21/2002 6:27:50 PM

yes but to what effect???????????????/

Quote Reply