superdunkaroos Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 well said diveplane! why can't nations just settle this on one of the flaming cliff servers? :smartass: --NiTiN-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namenlos Ein Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 well said diveplane! why can't nations just settle this on one of the flaming cliff servers? :smartass: Like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurofor Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 "One of the great laws of war is Never invade Russia." - Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery I've seen a few slightly different versions of the quote but that's the one listed here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59th_LeFty Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I don't get what is the problem. These MiGs are not wrecked by today, nor yesterday. And what's the differece? The MiGs remained in duty, are having FAR enough flight-hours to sustain the limited amount of flight-time of the russian pilots... (hmmm... familiar situation) By the way its not likley that any country take a chance of any attack on grounded planes.... [sIGPIC]http://www.forum.lockon.ru/signaturepics/sigpic5279_1.gif[/sIGPIC] I could shot down a Kitchen :smartass: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Well said Diveplane! Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 but anything guided is most likely being neglected, Ask the Georgians. They were the ones on the receiving end of Tochka-U's and Iskanders last summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The question is... if Russia allows their planes to get to this state then what state are their munitions in? Rounds, rockets, and dumb bombs are probably okay, but anything guided is most likely being neglected, unless it's under the Strategic Rocket Forces. Think of the state of Argentinian munitions in the Falklands war (a lot of dumb bombs hit our ships without exploding)! Corroded fuses etc, even 'simple' weaponry has a shelf life. All of the cold war stockpiles won't be so healthy - I presume the ones used in the Georgian war were the small percentage it was worth maintaining. Good link Diveplane, it makes you sick doesn't it to think of all the mess that comes second priority. Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Allegedly something like 1 in 3 bombs detonated in the Georgian skirmish. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morsmortis Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Think of the state of Argentinian munitions in the Falklands war (a lot of dumb bombs hit our ships without exploding)! Corroded fuses etc, even 'simple' weaponry has a shelf life. All of the cold war stockpiles won't be so healthy - I presume the ones used in the Georgian war were the small percentage it was worth maintaining. I remember some of the photos of The Georgian conflict displayed quite a few UXO A2G or SSMs. Of course then there is also the case of the Kursk..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 There was unexploded bombs in NATO use of military over Yugoslavia. Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Who cares. They weren't 2 in 3. What's this got to do with waepon corrosion? There was unexploded bombs in NATO use of military over Yugoslavia. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nscode Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 It has to do with expired ordinance that was used towords the end of the conflict (you could see that on the neatly printed labels :D). On Batajnica airfield alone something like 5 or 6 penetration bombs failed to detonate (along with a few dozen bomblets from cluster bombs, but that is "normal") and two guided missiles (one of them hit by AAA). One of the bombs was stuck about 2m under the taxiway just in front of an aircraft shelter. A volunteer pulled out the airplane (think it was a 21) with a tractor going over it. The airplane was later lost on ground, but the volunteer lived to tell the tail :) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyoteros Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Allegedly something like 1 in 3 bombs detonated in the Georgian skirmish. And you know that how? 1 "Eagle Dynamics" - simulating human madness since 1991 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] ۞ ۞ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 What's this got to do with waepon corrosion?It might not be corrosion, could be reliability. Could be bad design too? Or pilots not following procedures, or emergency jettison ... Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpm1 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 .. instead of building real hardware , if man wants to fight one another we have simulators and online =no one gets killed in the end.. +1000000 SU-25 missions [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG-1_Vogel Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) "One of the great laws of war is Never invade Russia." - Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery I've seen a few slightly different versions of the quote but that's the one listed here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery Actually, I think Germany's advance into Russian territory in Barbarossa would have been successful if Great Britain has been neutralized as a threat in 1940/41 as Hitler would have been able to comfortably reinforce the three army groups to the East without fear of landings in Western Europe... I doubt that the Yanks could have pulled an invasion off without the help of the Brits. The only way I can see them pulling it off would be to set up bases in the Mediterranean and advance up through Italy (but that would have been long and costly if the Afrika Corp had solidified their hold on Egypt and the surrounding territories; not to mention that the U-boats would have been able to close the Atlantic without much trouble if the UK fell. If they did pull this off, the Germans would have most likely been able to capture much more ground than they did historically. Remember also the USA would have been under pressure in the Pacific as well because of the threat from Japan... doesn't paint a pretty picture when you think about it like that. Russia was actually quite lucky back then, Hitler's obsession with capturing Stalingrad and refusing to wait to launch Operation Sealion meant that he could not support such a massive offensive for long before the Russians and other Allied nations began to gain the advantage over resources and sheer strength of arms. Just my 2p :pilotfly: On another note, I knew that Russia's military was in big trouble after years of neglect.. but that's a shocking statistic. It makes you wonder what would happen if Russia ever decided to use force of arms/defend territory against attacks from a stronger power, instead of bullying its smaller former member states into submission. Regardless of what happened politically for to spark the conflict in Georgia, seeing that Russia is so large I think the Georgian's did their best in defending against the "steamroller" that was the Russian Army. I thought that the Russian's would have advanced a lot quicker than they did. By the way, how did the Red's get so much armour into Georgia so quickly? I mean the MBT's would have needed to be moved in on transports through the tunnel because the tunnel is long the engines in the MBT's would have over-heated in the hot summer weather, not to mention the tunnel is only single file... yet they managed to have a fully armed force ready to go in quickly with all the armour moving in Gerogia/SO within' hours (if they weren't expecting it surely it would take about 12 hours to begin preperations to move in. My personal opinion is that it was a set up, and that armour was already present inside Gerogia/South Ossetia before the Georgian's opened up. This would explain why the Russian's were so keen to shoot down Gerogian UAV's, which they did quite a bit, in the weeks leading up to the conflict. Edited February 15, 2009 by 159th_LoneWolf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurofor Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 You may very well be right about that. Mistakes were obviously made and one can speculate in how things would have been different. From the perspective of today and how history turned out, the quote is true though. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG-1_Vogel Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 True, Russia is a very proud nation... and to date no one has beaten them, the closest they came was in '41 but they luckily managed to push it back through sheer man power... although its quite a sad fact that the brutality of the leadership in the Red Army meant that they killed nearly as many of their own men as the German's in all likeliness! The current estimate for Russian casualties stands at a horrific 26.6 million! Nazi Germany's estimate stands at 5.5 million, whilst the combined casualties for Great Britain and the USA stand at just under 1 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 A we really going to stray in this kind of history insights or try a bit more to focus on the thread's topic, being that 70% of Russia's MiG-29s are deemed unflyable? What is still unclear to me if this relates to the mission capable rate of the active units, or that it just relates to - more likely - the overall total of Mig-29's out there, including the many that are kept in storage or are just abandoned from disbanded units? It would be much more informative to have a count of the operational number, and the servicability of those. Current strength of the RuAF is much more limited than the cold war numbers. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boberro Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 True, Russia is a very proud nation... and to date no one has beaten them, the closest they came was in '41 but they As far I know Poland occupied Moscow in 1610-1612 and governed there in these 2 years. Noone after did this. Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG-1_Vogel Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 As far I know Poland occupied Moscow in 1610-1612 and governed there in these 2 years. Noone after did this. In that case, I stand corrected sir :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nscode Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 You don't beat Russia by entering Moscow. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boberro Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 You don't beat Russia by entering Moscow. Agree, but it was really huge success to get and govern capitol. :) In that case, I stand corrected sir :doh: We are all friendlies here, what "sir" :D Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Groove Posted February 15, 2009 ED Team Share Posted February 15, 2009 Can we get back on-topic? Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Even if 70% of Mig-29's ARE unflyable, exactly how many do Russia need? I can't imagine them needing any significant number seeing as they don't have an immediately close enemy with an 'offensive air' capability. Maybe it IS true that 70% are unflyable, but it's a bit superficial seeing as they don't have an immediate need for them? Suppose that's one way of looking at it anyhow, just some input. Operation seelowe is very interesting, one of many 'possible' turning points during WWII. Adolf Galland, commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht when it was finally called off. (Wiki) A slightly more significant one I personally believe was Dunkirk, which allowed the PROFFESSIONAL core of the British Army to remain (and to train the wartime army). It meant that Hitler still had a land threat to deal with [immediate or not]. Even more important is Hitler's bluff that started the war (invading Poland). The Wehrmacht wasn't planning to fight a war until ~1945, as far as I know. On countless occasions (including the BoB) Hitler fought the Generals for control, which obviously meant changing the [extremely effective] priorities and targets of the Armed Forces. Examples can include halting the panzers at Dunkirk, and switching to bombing cities in the BoB, as well as the aforementioned fixation on Russian cities. Hitler did indeed demonstrate his 'fuhrerprinzip' - by effectively paralyzing the most dynamic and adaptable Armed Forces in the world. Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts