Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Well my point is that people often brush off Russian equipment as being inferior with a general brush when they fail to consider that there is a lot of politicking and strategic interests that goes into which nation gets what in end. That Iraq could never had withstand the entire might of the US is without question, for the Warsaw Pact it is an open question that we thankfully did have to be answered. But people then to take that single lopsided battle and say "ah, see. Russian weapons suck".
None of them mentioned the fact that Iraqi M1A1Ms were lost to ISIL during the opening phase of the conflict, and we are talking about a group that is even less well funded than the Iraqs during the Gulf War. And when they do they are sure quick to bring up the absence of DU armor and likes.
And they sure hate to mention Saudi M1A1 losses in Yemen, the version that has DU armor package.

The T-80U in Checen were deployed in an urban setting which is a death trap to any modern MBTs.
And bashing the AK-47 for being heavier than the M-16 neglects the fact that it can be built with equipments found in a bicycle shop and operated by a 10 year old.
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
The weapon is an element in the whole system .

The training / skill level/ motivation of the soldiers more important than the weapon itself.

The Legio III Cyrenaica would be capable to defeat the whole Saudi army, in short time, regardless of weapons that the saudis posses.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Well my point is that people often brush off Russian equipment as being inferior with a general brush when they fail to consider that there is a lot of politicking and strategic interests that goes into which nation gets what in end.
To which I pointed to the parts of tactics and command. And reread my post I pointed to the Abrams lost in battle against the so-called Caliphate and Turkish Leopard 2A4 as well.
Saudi M1A1 losses in Yemen, the version that has DU armor package.
No the Saudi’s Do not have DU armor kits. They might have a indigenous Tungsten kit but not the DU kit.

Although AK have been built in back yard shops like the Kyber pass clones Those are hit or miss, just as likely to kill the user as the target. Plenty of 10 year olds can figure out how to use an AR15.
My point is that “Common knowledge” claims the AK is more reliable. That it cannot jam where so much as a picture of dust would jam an AR. Yet that is proven false.
Tactics strategies and logistics decide the conflict yet without the proper tools it becomes more costly. When some one brings up “Common knowledge” in military affairs it’s often myth, propaganda, third hand claims or from sources whom are in a position that jades them. The Sherman is often attacked because of a book written by a man Belton Cooper who served in a Sherman repair yard then wrote a well known book with the title “Death traps”
The Ar history comes from issues that happened because the US Army changed the ammunition in the M16 during Vietnam, told soldiers it was self cleaning and didn’t need a cleaning kit.
A Russian army rife with corruption unable to properly maintain, train their troops. Throws units trained to fight across nuclear wasteland in T72 against NATO troops. Is suddenly fighting former countryman trained to defeat invading tanks with T80 tanks.

Common knowledge is often biased claims.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Common knowledge is often biased claims.
Which in this case it is not.


Regardless, this whole discussion has been derailed OT. From the issue of Iraqi equipment being outdated during the first Gulf War (which is true and anyone with the basic sources can look it up making it common knowledge), to ridiculous comparisons of the AK-47/M-16 capabilities and the M4 Sherman which were never part of the topic to begin with.

Let's put it another way, I do not see 1990 Iraq bristling with the likes of the Su-27, MIG-29, S-300 or any of the weapons which was in Soviet use during the end stages of the Cold War.
 
Last edited:

maint1234

New Member
Registered Member
To which I pointed to the parts of tactics and command. And reread my post I pointed to the Abrams lost in battle against the so-called Caliphate and Turkish Leopard 2A4 as well.

No the Saudi’s Do not have DU armor kits. They might have a indigenous Tungsten kit but not the DU kit.

Although AK have been built in back yard shops like the Kyber pass clones Those are hit or miss, just as likely to kill the user as the target. Plenty of 10 year olds can figure out how to use an AR15.
My point is that “Common knowledge” claims the AK is more reliable. That it cannot jam where so much as a picture of dust would jam an AR. Yet that is proven false.
Tactics strategies and logistics decide the conflict yet without the proper tools it becomes more costly. When some one brings up “Common knowledge” in military affairs it’s often myth, propaganda, third hand claims or from sources whom are in a position that jades them. The Sherman is often attacked because of a book written by a man Belton Cooper who served in a Sherman repair yard then wrote a well known book with the title “Death traps”
The Ar history comes from issues that happened because the US Army changed the ammunition in the M16 during Vietnam, told soldiers it was self cleaning and didn’t need a cleaning kit.
A Russian army rife with corruption unable to properly maintain, train their troops. Throws units trained to fight across nuclear wasteland in T72 against NATO troops. Is suddenly fighting former countryman trained to defeat invading tanks with T80 tanks.

Common knowledge is often biased claims.
The Sherman didnt do badly against M47 in the battle of Asal Utar in the indo pak 1965 war. Around 100 Pakistani M47 tanks got destroyed or captured. But during those times the tactics on the ground were more important as communication and coordination was not easy. And in any case both tanks were from western nations.
That's why I wrote specifically about 90s conflicts between American and Russian equipment. Even a European country like Serbia was a sitting duck and managed a single shooting down in the 90s. Argentina with French equipment had many more successes in the Malvinas war against the British (who were supported by the Americans), than the Iraqis, serbians ,Russians,etc combined.
Even in the last decades , India and Pakistan trust their mirage 2000s and f16s more than the newer su30s or FC1 , like we saw in the kargil war or the recent conflict.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Propaganda against Russian equipment doesn't apply to S-400 and F-35 because I'm assuming S-400 is 100% as capable as it is advertised and hyped up by fans. Even then, SEAD has advantages. SAMs literally can only react to attacks against itself and the targets they are protecting. So if both sides had their equipment's secrets revealed, the F-35 side has more to lose simply because it basically wins by default if neither sides were revealed.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
SAMs literally can only react to attacks against itself and the targets they are protecting.
Which is literally what a SAM is designed to do, as well as deny the air space to any enemy air force assets as well as enemy projectiles. You are acting like the leveled design of the S-400 or the SA-15 which will operate in tandem with the S-400 does not exist to defend against anti radiation missiles. .

So if both sides had their equipment's secrets revealed, the F-35 side has more to lose simply because it basically wins by default if neither sides were revealed.
What is it you are trying to say here ? This is assuming that F-35 side knows the electronic signature and capabilities of the S-400 which it does not atm.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Which is literally what a SAM is designed to do, as well as deny the air space to any enemy air force assets as well as enemy projectiles. You are acting like the leveled design of the S-400 or the SA-15 which will operate in tandem with the S-400 does not exist to defend against anti radiation missiles. .


What is it you are trying to say here ? This is assuming that F-35 side knows the electronic signature and capabilities of the S-400 which it does not atm.
Very simple, if you are stuck in one position with a sledge hammer and limited to only take limited range sweeps at me, who has slightly longer ranged weapon and I am moving around you in unpredictable patterns, I am the one with initiative and every advantage. On top of this, you have limited sweeps while I can go back to the other room and replenish my weapon.

S-400 used with other point defence missiles that are tasked with intercepting ARMs are still going to run into the problem of not really being able to knock out the intruding aircrafts and limiting themselves to intercepting the ordinance dropped by those aircrafts because those ordinance outrange SAM. They may even be cheaper in future with drone swarm and cheap decoy micro missiles.

I get that this comparison isn't exactly fair because it assumes the SEAD side is well equipped and can easily access replenishment but the point I'm trying to make is that one side is clearly on the offense and the SAM operators are defensive. Without taking out the launching platforms whether it be airbases, destroyers, carriers etc, the SAM side is always defending until they run out of missiles.

SAMs are great point defence and makes it more time consuming, expensive, and risky to strike certain targets. The idea is to use this time to actively attack those platforms. So yeah S-400 is not acting along and the rest of the military is busy working at destroying those F-35 bases. But when the discussion is S-400 data vs F-35 data, I know I'd prefer having the F-35 data due to reasons above because it's an offensive weapon as opposed to a defensive one which is far from impenetrable. Even with 4th gens, getting rid of S-400 networks just takes time and ammunition. Whereas how to get rid of F-35s is a mystery.
 
Last edited:

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Very simple, if you are stuck in one position with a sledge hammer and limited to only take limited range sweeps at me, who has slightly longer ranged weapon and I am moving around you in unpredictable patterns, I am the one with initiative and every advantage. On top of this, you have limited sweeps while I can go back to the other room and replenish my weapon.

S-400 used with other point defence missiles that are tasked with intercepting ARMs are still going to run into the problem of not really being able to knock out the intruding aircrafts and limiting themselves to intercepting the ordinance dropped by those aircrafts because those ordinance outrange SAM. They may even be cheaper in future with drone swarm and cheap decoy micro missiles.

I get that this comparison isn't exactly fair because it assumes the SEAD side is well equipped and can easily access replenishment but the point I'm trying to make is that one side is clearly on the offense and the SAM operators are defensive. Without taking out the launching platforms whether it be airbases, destroyers, carriers etc, the SAM side is always defending until they run out of missiles.

SAMs are great point defence and makes it more time consuming, expensive, and risky to strike certain targets. The idea is to use this time to actively attack those platforms. So yeah S-400 is not acting along and the rest of the military is busy working at destroying those F-35 bases. But when the discussion is S-400 data vs F-35 data, I know I'd prefer having the F-35 data due to reasons above because it's an offensive weapon as opposed to a defensive one which is far from impenetrable. Even with 4th gens, getting rid of S-400 networks just takes time and ammunition. Whereas how to get rid of F-35s is a mystery.
This is whole scenario is redundantly stupid. It assumes that the SAM systems will be stationary throughout the conflict which is wrong by the very mobile nature of modern SAM systems and combat doctrines that emphasize that.
It assumes modern SAM systems are limited to doing one task at a time when in reality it really can multitask because in the end if it is something in the sky then that is what it is designed to shoot down. It ignore the whole plethora of radar systems at employed by modern SAMs that specializes in various targets and ranges.
You admit that your earlier comparison isn't fair, but then you go back to the claim that the SAMs will run out of missiles without considering the fact that the attacking side does not have an unlimited number of missiles and planes they can throw at the defenders as well. You also ignore the fact unless the attacking aircrafts can get at the factories which the SAM systems are defending the SAMS will continually have an unlimited supply of missiles as well.
This is not just unfair, it is plain biased.
You keep saying that 4th gens can deal with S-400s no problem. But we have yet to see any scant evidence of that happening.
Combating stealth fighters is difficult but it is not exactly rocket science, it involves discipline use of air defense systems combined with anti stealth detection technology. As we seen with the S-125 shooting down a Nighthawk it is not impossible. We can wax poetic about all the better tech the F-35 gets incomparison to the Nighthawk, but the same also goes for the S-400 to the S-125.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
This is whole scenario is redundantly stupid. It assumes that the SAM systems will be stationary throughout the conflict which is wrong by the very mobile nature of modern SAM systems and combat doctrines that emphasize that.
It assumes modern SAM systems are limited to doing one task at a time when in reality it really can multitask because in the end if it is something in the sky then that is what it is designed to shoot down. It ignore the whole plethora of radar systems at employed by modern SAMs that specializes in various targets and ranges.
You admit that your earlier comparison isn't fair, but then you go back to the claim that the SAMs will run out of missiles without considering the fact that the attacking side does not have an unlimited number of missiles and planes they can throw at the defenders as well. You also ignore the fact unless the attacking aircrafts can get at the factories which the SAM systems are defending the SAMS will continually have an unlimited supply of missiles as well.
This is not just unfair, it is plain biased.
You keep saying that 4th gens can deal with S-400s no problem. But we have yet to see any scant evidence of that happening.
Combating stealth fighters is difficult but it is not exactly rocket science, it involves discipline use of air defense systems combined with anti stealth detection technology. As we seen with the S-125 shooting down a Nighthawk it is not impossible. We can wax poetic about all the better tech the F-35 gets incomparison to the Nighthawk, but the same also goes for the S-400 to the S-125.
Lol your example and argument is ridiculously stupid.

SAM systems ARE stationary when in use!

Show me an S-400 firing on the move.

They are limited in doing one task... detecting tracking and providing target data to missiles once fired.

You still don't get it. It's about initiative and my analogy is perfect. Shooting things down is possible. When tf did I say it's not? Strawman me?

Equating an F-35 and S-400 dynamic with S-125 and F-117 is indicative enough.

It has nothing to do with better or not better and nothing to do with can SAMs shoot down anything. I'm done. This is impossible. As long as readers can understand.
 

Top