TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Chavez negotiating Russian arms purchase
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Dollar value of weapons exported has little to do with the quality of a weapons system. German weapons systems are consistently among the highest quality in the world.

Let him spend as much oil money on Russian military surplus as he wants, who cares. Saddam's Russian military equipment did him a fat lot of good, didn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Didn't someone tell Chavez that Russkie high tech mil hardware mostly suck?

I'd like to draw attention to the fact that armed looters in New Orleans held law enforcement at bay for days on end and all they had were some miserable small arms.

Small "threats" are much bigger when your best toys are sitting in the desert 5 - 10 days steaming time away.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Not to mention they were buying small arms stuff like AK47, RPG 7 because buying tanks and fighters would require a bigger logistic support than most of these tin pot dictator/rebel types have available, or have money to build. As for the Chinese, they've already used Russian gear for long time. Why would they want to introduce new gear that they aren't as proficient at and they've already have tech base to build and improve at home, plus not to mention US wouldn't sell to China?

The exact number of AK47's purchased in 2004/05 was 100,000. That's the insurance that any act of occupation will see a nasty insurgency emergy.

Other arms purchases that I rember are helicopters from Russia Mexico I think, and then there was an attempted buy of naval/air power by Ven. from Spain. It was blocked by the US as they have some kind of trade deal with Spain limiting exporting military tech.

The Russian equipment apears to be an off the shelf standard, say like your Bud Beer or Coors. Countries buy it to feed the masses while they set up micro brewries to turn out regional specialties when needed.

China and Iran have both developed significant tech on thier own, including a wide array of ship destroying missiles and even jet fighters.

The disturbing thing is we don't really know how good any of this shit is until it's used.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Dollar value of weapons exported has little to do with the quality of a weapons system. German weapons systems are consistently among the highest quality in the world. Let him spend as much oil money on Russian military surplus as he wants, who cares. Saddam's Russian military equipment did him a fat lot of good, didn't it?

I'm going to tailor this so it's not misleading:

quote:

Saddam's Russian military equipment did him a fat lot of good sitting in the open desert, didn't it?

Or one might also be interested to note that the Russian AK47's of Saddam's area continue to kill US and British troops.

Agreed, a sub in the hands of a poorly trained navy is nothing but a potential big metal mass grave for its sailors. And Chavez's military has a long way to go before it could even be seen as on par with Saddam's. Having advanced weapons is nice, but you need trained, skilled. professional soldiers to operate them.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Dollar value of weapons exported has little to do with the quality of a weapons system. German weapons systems are consistently among the highest quality in the world. Let him spend as much oil money on Russian military surplus as he wants, who cares. Saddam's Russian military equipment did him a fat lot of good, didn't it?

NO SHIT. Chemical and biological weapons systems sold by France, Germany, UK, etc. did far better for the Iraqi military ;-)

How good are the Russian tanks in the battlefield when they are not backed by good airforce? A good example for that is the 1967 Arab War. Israeli air force stopped the Soviet-made tanks long before they could kick arse because of the lack and early destruction of the Arab air forces. And without the sufficient air support, Arab states were forked. But thats not the topic. Russian weapons system are very good, not the best, though some are, and perform very good in the hands of properly and well trained people. I already made that point. Good enought for the buck to succeed, especially in urban, guerilla warfare and in jungle surroundings like Venezuela has.

US military had an upper hand in military technology in Vietnam war, but how good did that get them? Better military technology gives an advantage, but not an advantage enough to win a battle or a war. Its whoever has better brains and better use of ther equipment. Some people still have 20-year-old cars that run just as good if not better than new cars. That doesnt make them worse than new cars on the market. Your brand new top of the line car can break down tomorrow, but those 20-year-old well-maintained by professionals vehicles can run as smooth for another 10-20 years.

EDIT: On an interesting note, Soviet Union and China mainly armed Iran in 1980s to defeat Iraq and its armies that were mainly armed by western countries ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium US military had an upper hand in military technology in Vietnam war, but how good did that get them? Better military technology gives an advantage, but not an advantage enough to win a battle or a war.

The US could have won the Vietnam war back in the 1970s had it been properly executed. The US military had then and still has now the highest quality weapons in the world, but when they are not used correctly due to poor tactics and incorrect military strategies then you get what happened in Vietnam.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX The US could have won the Vietnam war back in the 1970s had it been properly executed. The US military had then and still has now the highest quality weapons in the world, but when they are not used correctly due to poor tactics and incorrect military strategies then you get what happened in Vietnam.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! You must be f@kcing kidding me! Best quality weapons?? HAHAHAHA!!!

Oh boy! just compare M16 and AK47 and you will understand everything.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX The US could have won the Vietnam war back in the 1970s had it been properly executed. The US military had then and still has now the highest quality weapons in the world, but when they are not used correctly due to poor tactics and incorrect military strategies then you get what happened in Vietnam.

I don't buy it, any of it.

To win the Vietnam war they would have had to create an opressive police state. Check out www.pinkyshow.org to get a nice picture of that conflict.

The US has the upper hand in space superiority which leads to the quick destruction of any visible enemy. The only things that have been tested in the past 15-20 years are the US recon abilities and guidance systems (which performed well). But even saying that they are the best is a stretch. The US just happens to be one of the only countries to have actually use thier weapons.

It's easy to be the top in a feild of one.

If any opponent were to either disable or match the US recon + guidance tech then we would actually get a chance to see if the rest of thier equipment is worth the billions it cost.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller HAHAHAHAHA!!! You must be f@kcing kidding me! Best quality weapons?? HAHAHAHA!!! Oh boy! just compare M16 and AK47 and you will understand everything.

Yes, thanks for making my point for me. The M-16 is the far better weapon unless you are part of a poorly supplied 3rd world army who can't properly maintain their weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I don't buy it, any of it. To win the Vietnam war they would have had to create an opressive police state. Check out www.pinkyshow.org to get a nice picture of that conflict.

Go google Linebacker 2. If the US had properly used its advantage of having strategic air power at the start of the war instead of the end it would have been a whole different story.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Yes, thanks for making my point for me. The M-16 is the far better weapon unless you are part of a poorly supplied 3rd world army who can't properly maintain their weapons. Go google Linebacker 2. If the US had properly used its advantage of having strategic air power at the start of the war instead of the end it would have been a whole different story.

You didn't watch the movie did you.

The problems with Vietnam had little to do with how many bombs hit where. The amount of armaments dumped into the country were astronomical, dwarfing the ordinance use in the entirety of wwII. The problem was that the people who lived in the country did not support the US or the political class allied with the US, they supported, in a democratic majority type of way, Ho Chi Min.

Ok, so maybe more bombs might have helped. If it weren't for all those Vietnamese people in Vietnam the war would have been won.

PS. the article on Linbacker II makes no mention of being improperly carried out, it only notes that weather was a limiting factor. It also calls the mission a sucess. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...inebacker-2.htm

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Yes, thanks for making my point for me. The M-16 is the far better weapon unless you are part of a poorly supplied 3rd world army who can't properly maintain their weapons.

Go to kindergarden pal. Don't talk about things you don't know.

AK47 way too better than M16, by both power and handling.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Yes, thanks for making my point for me. The M-16 is the far better weapon unless you are part of a poorly supplied 3rd world army who can't properly maintain their weapons. Go google Linebacker 2. If the US had properly used its advantage of having strategic air power at the start of the war instead of the end it would have been a whole different story.

Only if, what about if, if they did this, that ... you're hopeless with your attempt to defend American weaponry in Vietnam. No matter how advanced their military equipment was, they were still going to lose that war.

M-16 is FAR BETTER? LMAO! Hmmmm, last time I checked, AK-47 is one of the best selling weapons of all-time. Best selling gun no question. ITS EVEN FEATURED ON THE FLAGS OF SOME COUNTRIES!!!! It has much longer durability and resistance to damage than M-16 that requires careful handling and regular cleaning. AK-47 will not jam due to dirt, water, grease, you throw it and it will still fire! IT IS STILL USED OFTEN IN ITS ORIGINAL 1947 DESIGN! LOL ... talk about genius design. According to Wikipedia:

"It was one of the first, true assault rifles and remains the most widely-used, known as the "Best Automatic Assault Rifle". More AK-type rifles have been produced than of any other assault rifle type [Over 100 million]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47


LOL ... in durability it is one of the best weapons in the world. Heck, American troops have even liked it and are even sometimes trained on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LCpl_Cheema_on_the_AK-47.JPG

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Go to kindergarden pal. Don't talk about things you don't know. AK47 way too better than M16, by both power and handling.

I personally owned and have shot thousands of rounds through both, so I think I'm in a far better position than most to comment on them.

Like I said, the AK-47 is great if you are part of a 3rd world army that is not well supplied and not skilled with cleaning their weapons. Its resistance to dirt is the only advantage it has.

The new versions of the M-16 outclass the AK-47 in almost every way. Its lighter, with a longer range, more accurate, and a higher rate of fire. Just because a weapon has been made in huge numbers and is used by every third rate army in the world does not make it the superior weapon.

And in Vietnam, the man reason for losing the war was improper tactics, the same reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX And in Vietnam, the man reason for losing the war was improper tactics, the same reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.

And who supports them in Afghanistan?

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Like I said, the AK-47 is great if you are part of a 3rd world army that is not well supplied and not skilled with cleaning their weapons. Its resistance to dirt is the only advantage it has. The new versions of the M-16 outclass the AK-47 in almost every way. Its lighter, with a longer range, more accurate, and a higher rate of fire. Just because a weapon has been made in huge numbers and is used by every third rate army in the world does not make it the superior weapon.

This is consistent with what I have read about both weapons. The choice should esentially be made based on the supply chain availablity. If a combatant can afford the luxury of a regimented supply chain with time and space for propper maintenance, like the US, then the M16 is the way to go. If you expect to be on the run, pick up an ak.

If you can't maintain an M16 (providing that you've been taught how to maintain it) with some CLP (or other gun oil), few pieces of rags and rods to pull through the barrel, you're an idiot.

It's not a very complicated weapon. (though more complex than an AK)

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I personally owned and have shot thousands of rounds through both, so I think I'm in a far better position than most to comment on them. Like I said, the AK-47 is great if you are part of a 3rd world army that is not well supplied and not skilled with cleaning their weapons. Its resistance to dirt is the only advantage it has. The new versions of the M-16 outclass the AK-47 in almost every way. Its lighter, with a longer range, more accurate, and a higher rate of fire. Just because a weapon has been made in huge numbers and is used by every third rate army in the world does not make it the superior weapon. And in Vietnam, the man reason for losing the war was improper tactics, the same reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.

No, the reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan is because US funded and organized Al Qaeda, Taliban and armed them to the teeth, and Soviets were drained fighting them. Whose equipment shot down hundreds of Soviet tank-ships (their helicopters) or penetrated their tanks? It was a revenge move sort of thing for Soviets and Chinese arming and helping the Viet Cong.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium No, the reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan is because US funded and organized Al Qaeda, Taliban and armed them to the teeth, and Soviets were drained fighting them. Whose equipment shot down hundreds of Soviet tank-ships (their helicopters) or penetrated their tanks? It was a revenge move sort of thing for Soviets and Chinese arming and helping the Viet Cong.

AQ and Taliban didn't exist back in the 70s-80s

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree AQ and Taliban didn't exist back in the 70s-80s

My bad ... Taliban didnt, but Al Qaeda did. But anyways, thats not my point. Americans armed the mujahideens ...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium No, the reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan is because US funded and organized Al Qaeda, Taliban and armed them to the teeth, and Soviets were drained fighting them. Whose equipment shot down hundreds of Soviet tank-ships (their helicopters) or penetrated their tanks? It was a revenge move sort of thing for Soviets and Chinese arming and helping the Viet Cong.

Well, actually it was the Mujahideen who were supplied with weapons. Paybacks are a bitch aren't they?

Really, the US sent less than 500 Stingers and no heavy anti-tank weapons, so I don't know where you get the idea that we armed them to the teeth. Maybe that makes the embarassing defeat of the mighty Soviet army a less bitter pill to swallow?

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Well, actually it was the Mujahideen who were supplied with weapons. Paybacks are a bitch aren't they? Really, the US sent less than 500 Stingers and no heavy anti-tank weapons, so I don't know where you get the idea that we armed them to the teeth. Maybe that makes the embarassing defeat of the mighty Soviet army a less bitter pill to swallow?

LOL, wasnt it tough to swallow the American loss in Vietnam to a badly armed with primitive AK's Viet Cong? And actually Stingers and anti-tank weapons arent such small weapons. 500 Stingers can shoot down 500 helicopters easily back then, and they pretty much did, and still can in most conflicts. Back then a stinger would shoot down ANY helicopter because there was little defense if any available against them. Anti-tank weapons still kick ass today. However, a Soviet-made MIG-15 (quite basic) in Vietnam War doesnt guarantee that it will shoot down any US military aircraft. So its quite embarassing that Viet Cong using primitive technology defeated the advanced and armed to the teeth US army.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium LOL, wasnt it tough to swallow the American loss in Vietnam to a badly armed with primitive AK's Viet Cong? And actually Stingers and anti-tank weapons arent such small weapons. 500 Stingers can shoot down 500 helicopters easily back then, and they pretty much did, and still can in most conflicts. Back then a stinger would shoot down ANY helicopter because there was little defense if any available against them. Anti-tank weapons still kick ass today. However, a Soviet-made MIG-15 (quite basic) in Vietnam War doesnt guarantee that it will shoot down any US military aircraft. So its quite embarassing that Viet Cong using primitive technology defeated the advanced and armed to the teeth US army.

I don't think the MIG-15 was responsible for the defeat of the US in Vietnam. In reality, the NV airforce was not all that keen in engaging the USAF in air-to-air combat because they usually ended up getting their asses handed to them. What was effective was the thousands of anti-aircraft missiles that the USSR supplied to the NVA. Technology had little to do with the inability to win the Vietnam war. At the end of the day if you have idiots mismanaging the execution of a war all the fancy weapons in the world won't help you.

And I think that you are forgetting that the US was not only fighting the VietCong but also the North Vietnamese Army. You know, a real army (supplied by the Soviets) with its own air force, unlike the Mujahideen who were a ragtag group of rebels hiding in the mountains. My point was that if 500 Stinger missiles was what enabled that group of rebels to defeat the Soviet army then maybe the Soviet army wasn't all it was cracked up to be. The Soviets were in Afghanistan for almost 10 years right? Too bad they couldn't get done in all that time what the USAF and a few US special forces groups did in a few months.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium My bad ... Taliban didnt, but Al Qaeda did. But anyways, thats not my point. Americans armed the mujahideens ...

AQ didn't exist until 1989 as an off shoot of some mujaheedin organization.

If you're going to present a fact, at least be accurate about it.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX My point was that if 500 Stinger missiles was what enabled that group of rebels to defeat the Soviet army then maybe the Soviet army wasn't all it was cracked up to be. The Soviets were in Afghanistan for almost 10 years right? Too bad they couldn't get done in all that time what the USAF and a few US special forces groups did in a few months.

I think the situation is poorly analysed.

The USAF and the US special forces were clearly PART of the reason the area was cleared quickly but they had help from almost every other western country (even after the USAF decided to bomb Canadian troops).

And then there is the tiny sticking point that it has now been 6 years since the invasion and the resistance has not ended. The mission in Afghanistan is not acomplished. Weekly military casualties are still normal in the country, I think 6 Canadians died last week.

It is still possible that the US, and NATO will be driven out of Afghanistan and possibly in a shorter time frame then the Soviets. I think 2008 or 2009 are the years that Canadian politicians are talking of troop withdrawal. That would be a loss in 8 years to the Soviet 10.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.