Re: Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future

[Jack White]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message >...
> BTov wrote:
> > (Jack White) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
> >> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
> >> East including Israel.
> >
> > so what?
> >
> >> Israel has the best pilots and crews in the Middle East, but the
> >> Eurofighter Typhoon is such a superior aircraft with INCREDIBLE BVR
> >> capability superior to any aircraft in the Middle East that even
> >> though Saudis are lazy and spoiled, the Eurofighter Typhoon will give
> >> the Saudis the best Airforce in the Middle East. The only way Israel
> >> can gain back Air Superiority over Saudi Arabia would be if Israel
> >> were to buy tons of F-22 Raptors.
> >
> > wutever
> >
> >> Saudi Arabia has a much bigger GDP than Israel and has Trillions of
> >> dollars of Oil Reserves so there's no way Israel can on its own
> >> compete with a country like Saudi Arabia in an arms race.
> >
> > & saudis bemoan poor palistanians while their arab whole is giving
> > only 5%.. ;L
> >
> >> The only way Israel can gain back air superiority is if US taxpayers
> >> will again have to pay BILLIONS of dollars like they always do for
> >> Israel, this time for Israel to get FREE F-22 Raptors from the US
> >> Taxpayers.
> >
> > it may be interesting to test this eurofighter against arrows..
>
> Arrows are ABMs not SAMs. They are designed to take a Balistic Missile out
> at Apogee so nothing hits Israel. They are very effective at doing that,
> 100 percent of the tests with real Balistic Missiles to be interecepted were
> succesfully hit by the system at the warhead not the main body as the
> Patriorts did. The Patriot was orginally designed to take out high flying
> aircraft not missiles. That is why the body of the rocket stage is what got
> hit by it every time and the warhead then still fell to earth intact about
> 1/2 the time. The US lost most of the first Gulf War Casualties to a "shot
> down" SKUD's warhead that hit a building housing a lot of miltiary personel.
> The Arrow uses a different system of firing a group of shaped charges at the
> warhead secton of the missile and body both. The real ideal is to force the
> warhead itself to explode due to the charges going off on it. Hardly cost
> effective to shoot down a plane. Israel has several other means of taking
> out incoming aircraft. It has 12 Patriot Batteries, 1000s of SAMs on the
> ready and then their air to air capabilities and own air to air misiles and
> guns. They never faced even odds 1 to 1 and no matter what aircraft the
> enemy flew they shot them all down and lost very few of their planes to it.
> I pitty any Arab pilot shot down those at home confront, he better speak the
> words I surrender in perfect Hebrew or he is dead. They common Israeli does
> not speak the symetic variation called Arabic. It is not their
> responsibility to know for sure the intention of an enemy that comes down in
> a parachute in their back yard. Their real responsibility is to shoot first
> if not Isreali and ask later.
>
>
> In joint flight manuvers the Israeli Pilots in the Israeli built jets went
> up against US pilots in F116s and though supposedly up against the best of
> the best they had a "kill" ratio of 5 to 1. For every simulated hit on them
> they had simulated a hit of five US top pilots flying the most sophisticated
> fighter made in the world at the time. Arab Air forces run from IAF pilots
> or they die, that is always been the only choices they had and still will
> have even 20 years from now.

Look, it's obvious that Israeli pilots are the best in the middle east
and perhaps the best in the world, but they're NOT as good as you
think they are either.
I'll give you some examples of why they're not as good as you think
they are.
In the Yom Kippur War even Syria shot down AT LEAST 36 Israeli Air
Force aircraft in a SINGLE DAY.
There were 23 SA-6 Sam Batteries in Syria before the start of the Yom
Kippur War, and at the END OF THE YOM KIPPUR WAR, the Israeli Air
Force was only able to take out 3 of those 23 SA-6 batteries at a
great loss of Israeli Aircraft.
The IDF GROUND FORCES did take out a few more of those SA-6 batteries,
but the Israeli Air Force certainly was NOT up to the challenge of
taking on the SA-6 during the Yom Kippur War.
Here's another example, I've read on several different military sites
that there were a dozen or more Pakistani Air Force Pilots who went
over to arab countries during the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War to
see how well they could do against the Isreli Air Force since they had
already racked up great kill ratios against the Indians.
They wanted to see "how good they really were" as it were against a
great air force like the Israelis.
They claim that these Pakistanis shot down at least 10 Israeli air
craft in the 6 day war and at least 1 Israeli aircraft in the Yom
Kippur war without the Israeli Air Force even shooting down 1 of these
Pakistani pilots.
It's NOT just the Pakistanis who claim this, even this Indian Air
Force historian guy who made this Indian Air Force website claims
that.
http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/pakpilots.htm
Here's the homepage of this Indian site.
http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/




This website from New Zealand claims that Pakistani pilots shot down
10 Israeli aircraft in the 6 day war, and at least 1 Israeli aircraft
in the Yom Kippur War.
http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
Here's the homepage of this site from New Zealand.
http://www.scramble.nl/

I also did do a google search to find out what kind of kill ratios
Soviet Pilots had against the Israelis when Soviet pilots flew for
Arab Air Forces, but I didn't find anything.


BTW, as even if Israeli pilots are the best in the world, they still
can't be in the same league as the Americans or Europeans because of
the number of and the quality of equipment that the Europeans and
Americans have.
I'd even have to put the Spanish Air Force above the Israeli Air Force
when the Spanish get all their Eurofighter Typhoons(they have already
got their first batch of Eurofighter Typhoons I understand).
No matter how good an Israeli pilot in an F-15I or F-16I would be,
he/she just CAN'T compete with an American Pilot in an F-22 Raptor or
a European pilot in a Eurofighter Typhoon.
The Israelis just don't have stuff even close to as good as the Meteor
BVR air to air missile for example.
Most of Western Europe will have these missiles on their fighter
planes soon.






>
>
> --�
> MattA
> ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
>
> Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
> to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
>
> Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
> http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Jack White wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message >...
>> BTov wrote:
>>> (Jack White) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
>>>> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
>>>> East including Israel.
>>>
>>> so what?
>>>
>>>> Israel has the best pilots and crews in the Middle East, but the
>>>> Eurofighter Typhoon is such a superior aircraft with INCREDIBLE BVR
>>>> capability superior to any aircraft in the Middle East that even
>>>> though Saudis are lazy and spoiled, the Eurofighter Typhoon will
>>>> give the Saudis the best Airforce in the Middle East. The only way
>>>> Israel can gain back Air Superiority over Saudi Arabia would be if
>>>> Israel were to buy tons of F-22 Raptors.
>>>
>>> wutever
>>>
>>>> Saudi Arabia has a much bigger GDP than Israel and has Trillions of
>>>> dollars of Oil Reserves so there's no way Israel can on its own
>>>> compete with a country like Saudi Arabia in an arms race.
>>>
>>> & saudis bemoan poor palistanians while their arab whole is giving
>>> only 5%.. ;L
>>>
>>>> The only way Israel can gain back air superiority is if US
>>>> taxpayers will again have to pay BILLIONS of dollars like they
>>>> always do for Israel, this time for Israel to get FREE F-22
>>>> Raptors from the US Taxpayers.
>>>
>>> it may be interesting to test this eurofighter against arrows..
>>
>> Arrows are ABMs not SAMs. They are designed to take a Balistic
>> Missile out at Apogee so nothing hits Israel. They are very
>> effective at doing that, 100 percent of the tests with real Balistic
>> Missiles to be interecepted were succesfully hit by the system at
>> the warhead not the main body as the Patriorts did. The Patriot was
>> orginally designed to take out high flying aircraft not missiles.
>> That is why the body of the rocket stage is what got hit by it every
>> time and the warhead then still fell to earth intact about 1/2 the
>> time. The US lost most of the first Gulf War Casualties to a "shot
>> down" SKUD's warhead that hit a building housing a lot of miltiary
>> personel. The Arrow uses a different system of firing a group of
>> shaped charges at the warhead secton of the missile and body both.
>> The real ideal is to force the warhead itself to explode due to the
>> charges going off on it. Hardly cost effective to shoot down a
>> plane. Israel has several other means of taking out incoming
>> aircraft. It has 12 Patriot Batteries, 1000s of SAMs on the ready
>> and then their air to air capabilities and own air to air misiles
>> and guns. They never faced even odds 1 to 1 and no matter what
>> aircraft the enemy flew they shot them all down and lost very few of
>> their planes to it. I pitty any Arab pilot shot down those at home
>> confront, he better speak the words I surrender in perfect Hebrew or
>> he is dead. They common Israeli does not speak the symetic
>> variation called Arabic. It is not their responsibility to know for
>> sure the intention of an enemy that comes down in a parachute in
>> their back yard. Their real responsibility is to shoot first if not
>> Isreali and ask later.
>>
>>
>> In joint flight manuvers the Israeli Pilots in the Israeli built
>> jets went up against US pilots in F116s and though supposedly up
>> against the best of the best they had a "kill" ratio of 5 to 1. For
>> every simulated hit on them they had simulated a hit of five US top
>> pilots flying the most sophisticated fighter made in the world at
>> the time. Arab Air forces run from IAF pilots or they die, that is
>> always been the only choices they had and still will have even 20
>> years from now.
>
> Look, it's obvious that Israeli pilots are the best in the middle east
> and perhaps the best in the world, but they're NOT as good as you
> think they are either.
> I'll give you some examples of why they're not as good as you think
> they are.
> In the Yom Kippur War even Syria shot down AT LEAST 36 Israeli Air
> Force aircraft in a SINGLE DAY.

You are very correct, however do you care to mention the Syian losses that
same day? How about that was the only day they had that airforce intact.
They lost over 90 percent of their entire airforce and pilots in that huge
engagment. The Syrian Airforce was seen heading toward Israel so Israel
Scrambled its Norther Fighters that were designated as ready. That is only
about 50 percent of them. The US Navy would call them the Alert Aircraft
which would be manned and ready if needed. Israelis at that time due to the
war, had 1/2 the pilots in the planes ready to be scrambled at a moments
notice. Syria had sent their entire Airforce thus outnumbering the Israelis
at first contact about 4 to 1. Israel did loose a total of 36 aircraft in
that battle but under 30 Syrian Planes limped back to home and not one ever
penetrated Israeli Airspace, their real objective. That meant the IAF shot
down 12 - 15 planes for every one they lost in that battle. No one rates an
airforce facing larger numbers by all aircraft returning safely. That is
rediculous. Next you will be saying the US army is a joke because they
loose men every day in Iraq still. Get realistic, best never meant no
losses and never meant at time high losses, it means what the *final* result
is. During the Battle of Britain the RAF one night only could get up five
fighters who each shot down over 7 enemy aircraft and all those RAF planes
were lost. Who won in the end of the Battle of Britain, not the Luftwaffa
that is certain. The RAF won that battle by no matter what getting what
they still could in the air and inflicting heavier losses on the Germans
than they suffered.

ere were 23 SA-6 Sam Batteries in Syria before the start of the Yom
> Kippur War, and at the END OF THE YOM KIPPUR WAR, the Israeli Air
> Force was only able to take out 3 of those 23 SA-6 batteries at a
> great loss of Israeli Aircraft.

Yet they used that to learn they went against better in the Egyptian
Theater, Syria was a holding action, get it. They were like a thorn not the
main target of the IAF, Egypt that had recrossed the Cannal was more a
threat. However, the Israelis only targetted a total of SAM Batteries in
Syria that their intellegence told them correctly left Damascus open to
air-raids and they did send in bombers once near the end of the war and hit
the Syrian verison of the Penatgon killing all the leading stradigists of
the Syrian Military in one blow. It is not always how many but which ground
targets you take out. Egypt posed a larger threat in the early part of the
war that is why the number of IAF planes in the Norhtern Command was so low
as to not equal the Syrians in number as they had before the war and would
have gone one to one with even a higher kill ratio. The Israeli Pilots
could not have the luxury of cover of a wingman while setting up their shot,
the Syrians could. Had the Command not sent 1/2 the planes from Norther
Israel on day one of the war to fight the stronger better positioned enemy,
they would have not even lost the numbers that they had. Wingmen stay with
their lead, protecting them from being set up for a shot. And if the lead
misses they switch off and the wingman takes lead and tries again. Best
shot on a Jet in air to air is from the rear or about 20 degrees off
straigth on. A wingman's job is to watch for such a set up and break it up
if needed.

> The IDF GROUND FORCES did take out a few more of those SA-6 batteries,
> but the Israeli Air Force certainly was NOT up to the challenge of
> taking on the SA-6 during the Yom Kippur War.

They never tried sir. They took out only enough to open Damascus up for the
air attack on the building all the militiary leadership of Syria were at.
They then brought down that building that killed every high ranking Officer
and all the real experience of how to adjust to conditions during a war.
Read some more on the descission making during that war of the Israeli
Command. Here is some simple facts on that.

1) Egypt was the primary enemy, and had to be stopped first and formost.

2) Until the War with Egypt was won or in total Israeli Control only a
holding action would be fought with Syria. They would do all they could to
keep Syrian Forces from over-running the Golan and to keep the large
airforce of Syria from attacking Israel Proper.

3) The SAMs were known about and on the Sinai they were the largest threat
as the IAF would be most active over that airspace. In Syria until the
Egyptian threat was elimanated to the West, was not a large concern. They
new the exact posistions of the Syrian Batteries. They knew it would be
costly to take each out and decided to only open a single coredor at the
time to be able to hit targets of Command Value in Damascus Proper. They
took out which meant that the overlap capability for defending Damascus was
no longer there on one route.

4) The Egyptians had the Newest SAM batteries that were usually not let out
of Russia. They were also manned by Soviet Technitians not Egyptian. The
IAF did take heavy casualites on thier first run in with them, but came up
with better tactics, Same used by the USA in Vietnam by the A6-Intruders.
A plane would electronicallly make itself the most important target and as
soon as targeting radar painted them a special missile was fired that locked
on to the battery. If the missile got off anyway the plane did a series of
manouvers many times taking the SAM (SA-7) back to an Egyptian target and by
flying low enough and then lifting in an agagy-4 climb at the last moment
the SAM hit what the plane had passed over. They also started using flares
and attaching baffles to the engines to hide the heat from the exahaust.
Later they were found to have refined it when they took otu SA-9 sites in
the Becka Valley only loosing a few drones.


It may be of little importance but Israel was going to be on full alert that
day. The US "sold them a bill of goods" saying that the Egyptians and
Syrians were not going to attack and the SA-7s were mock ups. So Israels
only real mistake was to take the word of the Liars in Washington DC and
Langley West Va.



> Here's another example, I've read on several different military sites
> that there were a dozen or more Pakistani Air Force Pilots who went
> over to arab countries during the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War to
> see how well they could do against the Isreli Air Force since they had
> already racked up great kill ratios against the Indians.
> They wanted to see "how good they really were" as it were against a
> great air force like the Israelis.
> They claim that these Pakistanis shot down at least 10 Israeli air
> craft in the 6 day war and at least 1 Israeli aircraft in the Yom

That would mean they are the only ones that shot down Israeli Aircraft in
the 6 day war. LOL.


> Kippur war without the Israeli Air Force even shooting down 1 of these
> Pakistani pilots.
> It's NOT just the Pakistanis who claim this, even this Indian Air
> Force historian guy who made this Indian Air Force website claims
> that.

SO then they claim since the IAF only lists 11 planes lost, one in a bad
landing BTW, that all the planes shot down was by Packestani Pilots. Have
some more that I can laugh at. BTW I was in that War, and a relative of
mine was a flight section leader and was one of those planes hit but ejected
back over Israeli Held positions. He was injured but to good to be kept out
so he ended the time in the main Command and Communcations Center. I repeat
*only* 10 IAF Combat Planes were lost to Enemy fire and one of those pilots
was hit from the ground, not the air on a napalm run against Egyptian Tanks
that were part of an Armored Column. I guess that was a Packistani Pilot as
well.

In the Yom Kippur war, a little bit more believable except what front was he
fighting on? Syrian perhaps in that one engagement, after that there were
no more air to air fights the Syrian Planes that survived just stood down
totally. So unless he was part of that then I doubt it as well.

If he was on the Egyptian front and said he shot down a IAF Combat Jet, then
what day of the war did he do it. The Egyptians used their airforce only 2
days out of that war. The first day to support their ground assault and the
next to last day of the war when the SA-7s got taken out of the picture and
Israelis were buring the dead Soviets in unmarked graves so not to cause
WWWIII over them having combattants in the war. Nixon would have let loose
SAC which he had up the entire war to prevent that from being done. Had
Israelis put on a huge show and tell and not held that secret till about 2
years ago, Nixon may have sent some of the bombers or missiles in and bye
bye world. IDF simply took the IDs of those Soviets killed in the taking
out of the SA-7s and then simply buried them right by the reckage of the
once command center for the battery. The IDF had the Egptian Army trapped
and the Syrians on the run, their airforce in ruins in both those nations.
Again it is not just numbers it is the results. Do you have any ideas of
how many American B17 crews died in that bobming campaign, but the mission
was accomplished while the Egyptian and Syrians Missions were not the
Israeli Missions all ended with the final defeats of both enemies on the
field. Had not the US Stepped in and told Israel to let supplies into the
trapped Egyptain Forces they would all have died with out a shot fired in
another two days. Nothing stood between them and Ciaro and that could have
meant Israeli Troops and guns hitting that city and cutting all escape off
and putting a gun to Saddam's head and demanding Unconditional Surrender.
Israeli Tanks the next day were shelling the outskirts of Damascus. IDF
Airborn had taken all the roads leading to any escape for them. The plans
accoridng to the Dyan Memoirs was to start dismantiling Damscus moving in
for the kill there and to take Ciaro and let the Egyptian Army trapped with
no drinking water left to die of thirst. That was the mission and they
accomplished it for all intent and purposes. As to Egyptian Pilot losses
they IAF shot down killing Saddat's own brother with his entire flight that
last day they flew. Again the ratios went skyrocketting since the SAMs were
no longer in action.

It is the final result that counts not the numbers unless the numbers
aproach 100 percent. In every war Israel started with fewer planes and
pilots then their enemy, yet in the end they always come out on top. Read
some more real history by those that fought there and learn.

Pakestani Claims only say the Syrians and Egyptians had no kills at all.
LOL. And how did they get thier planes there without the US seeing it and
documenting it. LOL again. Just more Mulsim and Indian (they also lie
about Israel 1000s of times) lies.


> http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/pakpilots.htm
> Here's the homepage of this Indian site.
> http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/
>
>
>
>
> This website from New Zealand claims that Pakistani pilots shot down
> 10 Israeli aircraft in the 6 day war, and at least 1 Israeli aircraft
> in the Yom Kippur War.
> http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
> Here's the homepage of this site from New Zealand.
> http://www.scramble.nl/
>
> I also did do a google search to find out what kind of kill ratios
> Soviet Pilots had against the Israelis when Soviet pilots flew for
> Arab Air Forces, but I didn't find anything.
>
>
> BTW, as even if Israeli pilots are the best in the world, they still
> can't be in the same league as the Americans or Europeans because of
> the number of and the quality of equipment that the Europeans and
> Americans have.
> I'd even have to put the Spanish Air Force above the Israeli Air Force
> when the Spanish get all their Eurofighter Typhoons(they have already
> got their first batch of Eurofighter Typhoons I understand).
> No matter how good an Israeli pilot in an F-15I or F-16I would be,
> he/she just CAN'T compete with an American Pilot in an F-22 Raptor or
> a European pilot in a Eurofighter Typhoon.
> The Israelis just don't have stuff even close to as good as the Meteor
> BVR air to air missile for example.
> Most of Western Europe will have these missiles on their fighter
> planes soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> --�
>> MattA
>> ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
>>
>> Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down
>> ads to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
>>
>> Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
>> http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/



--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

ROFLOL that's the biggest BS story Ever
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"Jack White" > wrote in message
om...
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
>...
> > BTov wrote:
> > > (Jack White) wrote in message
> > > >...
> > >> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
> > >> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
> > >> East including Israel.
> > >
> > > so what?
> > >
> > >> Israel has the best pilots and crews in the Middle East, but the
> > >> Eurofighter Typhoon is such a superior aircraft with INCREDIBLE BVR
> > >> capability superior to any aircraft in the Middle East that even
> > >> though Saudis are lazy and spoiled, the Eurofighter Typhoon will give
> > >> the Saudis the best Airforce in the Middle East. The only way Israel
> > >> can gain back Air Superiority over Saudi Arabia would be if Israel
> > >> were to buy tons of F-22 Raptors.
> > >
> > > wutever
> > >
> > >> Saudi Arabia has a much bigger GDP than Israel and has Trillions of
> > >> dollars of Oil Reserves so there's no way Israel can on its own
> > >> compete with a country like Saudi Arabia in an arms race.
> > >
> > > & saudis bemoan poor palistanians while their arab whole is giving
> > > only 5%.. ;L
> > >
> > >> The only way Israel can gain back air superiority is if US taxpayers
> > >> will again have to pay BILLIONS of dollars like they always do for
> > >> Israel, this time for Israel to get FREE F-22 Raptors from the US
> > >> Taxpayers.
> > >
> > > it may be interesting to test this eurofighter against arrows..
> >
> > Arrows are ABMs not SAMs. They are designed to take a Balistic Missile
out
> > at Apogee so nothing hits Israel. They are very effective at doing
that,
> > 100 percent of the tests with real Balistic Missiles to be interecepted
were
> > succesfully hit by the system at the warhead not the main body as the
> > Patriorts did. The Patriot was orginally designed to take out high
flying
> > aircraft not missiles. That is why the body of the rocket stage is what
got
> > hit by it every time and the warhead then still fell to earth intact
about
> > 1/2 the time. The US lost most of the first Gulf War Casualties to a
"shot
> > down" SKUD's warhead that hit a building housing a lot of miltiary
personel.
> > The Arrow uses a different system of firing a group of shaped charges at
the
> > warhead secton of the missile and body both. The real ideal is to force
the
> > warhead itself to explode due to the charges going off on it. Hardly
cost
> > effective to shoot down a plane. Israel has several other means of
taking
> > out incoming aircraft. It has 12 Patriot Batteries, 1000s of SAMs on
the
> > ready and then their air to air capabilities and own air to air misiles
and
> > guns. They never faced even odds 1 to 1 and no matter what aircraft the
> > enemy flew they shot them all down and lost very few of their planes to
it.
> > I pitty any Arab pilot shot down those at home confront, he better speak
the
> > words I surrender in perfect Hebrew or he is dead. They common Israeli
does
> > not speak the symetic variation called Arabic. It is not their
> > responsibility to know for sure the intention of an enemy that comes
down in
> > a parachute in their back yard. Their real responsibility is to shoot
first
> > if not Isreali and ask later.
> >
> >
> > In joint flight manuvers the Israeli Pilots in the Israeli built jets
went
> > up against US pilots in F116s and though supposedly up against the best
of
> > the best they had a "kill" ratio of 5 to 1. For every simulated hit on
them
> > they had simulated a hit of five US top pilots flying the most
sophisticated
> > fighter made in the world at the time. Arab Air forces run from IAF
pilots
> > or they die, that is always been the only choices they had and still
will
> > have even 20 years from now.
>
> Look, it's obvious that Israeli pilots are the best in the middle east
> and perhaps the best in the world, but they're NOT as good as you
> think they are either.
> I'll give you some examples of why they're not as good as you think
> they are.
> In the Yom Kippur War even Syria shot down AT LEAST 36 Israeli Air
> Force aircraft in a SINGLE DAY.
> There were 23 SA-6 Sam Batteries in Syria before the start of the Yom
> Kippur War, and at the END OF THE YOM KIPPUR WAR, the Israeli Air
> Force was only able to take out 3 of those 23 SA-6 batteries at a
> great loss of Israeli Aircraft.
> The IDF GROUND FORCES did take out a few more of those SA-6 batteries,
> but the Israeli Air Force certainly was NOT up to the challenge of
> taking on the SA-6 during the Yom Kippur War.
> Here's another example, I've read on several different military sites
> that there were a dozen or more Pakistani Air Force Pilots who went
> over to arab countries during the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War to
> see how well they could do against the Isreli Air Force since they had
> already racked up great kill ratios against the Indians.
> They wanted to see "how good they really were" as it were against a
> great air force like the Israelis.
> They claim that these Pakistanis shot down at least 10 Israeli air
> craft in the 6 day war and at least 1 Israeli aircraft in the Yom
> Kippur war without the Israeli Air Force even shooting down 1 of these
> Pakistani pilots.
> It's NOT just the Pakistanis who claim this, even this Indian Air
> Force historian guy who made this Indian Air Force website claims
> that.
> http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/pakpilots.htm
> Here's the homepage of this Indian site.
> http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/
>
>
>
>
> This website from New Zealand claims that Pakistani pilots shot down
> 10 Israeli aircraft in the 6 day war, and at least 1 Israeli aircraft
> in the Yom Kippur War.
> http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
> Here's the homepage of this site from New Zealand.
> http://www.scramble.nl/
>
> I also did do a google search to find out what kind of kill ratios
> Soviet Pilots had against the Israelis when Soviet pilots flew for
> Arab Air Forces, but I didn't find anything.
>
>
> BTW, as even if Israeli pilots are the best in the world, they still
> can't be in the same league as the Americans or Europeans because of
> the number of and the quality of equipment that the Europeans and
> Americans have.
> I'd even have to put the Spanish Air Force above the Israeli Air Force
> when the Spanish get all their Eurofighter Typhoons(they have already
> got their first batch of Eurofighter Typhoons I understand).
> No matter how good an Israeli pilot in an F-15I or F-16I would be,
> he/she just CAN'T compete with an American Pilot in an F-22 Raptor or
> a European pilot in a Eurofighter Typhoon.
> The Israelis just don't have stuff even close to as good as the Meteor
> BVR air to air missile for example.
> Most of Western Europe will have these missiles on their fighter
> planes soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --�
> > MattA
> > ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
> >
> > Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
> > to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
> >
> > Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
> > http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:53:02 -0400, > wrote:
>ROFLOL that's the biggest BS story Ever
>"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
>R.J. Goldman

Was it really necessary to quote 180 lines merely to add that small
comment?

BTW, could you please respect Usenet community values by not
top-posting in future.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Arie Kazachin wrote:
> In message > -
> (Jack White) writes:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> I also did do a google search to find out what kind of kill ratios
>> Soviet Pilots had against the Israelis when Soviet pilots flew for
>> Arab Air Forces, but I didn't find anything.
>
> 0-5 (that is, 5-0 to IAF), on July 30 1970, the only event of IAF
> engaging Soviet pilots (at least the only declassifyed event).
>
>
>
************************************************** **************************
**
> * Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail:
> *
>
************************************************** **************************
**
> NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name.
> Sorry, SPAM trap. ___ .__/ |
> | O /
> _/ /
> | | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
> | |
> | | |
> | | /O\
> | _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
> | * / \ o ++ O ++ o
> | | |
> | |<
> \ \_)
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \_|

The IDF intelegence deny that happened as the CIA asked them not to disclose
it. The world was afraid that Nixon had gone off the deep end and would use
SAC Bombers already airborn 24 hours a day and fire the misiles in the Silos
at the Russians as he warned them he would if they did what you say. There
is no declasified information on Russian Pilots flying missions for the Arab
side to this day. There are of course the rhumors that it happened but no
IAF pilot, no Arab Pilot, and no Soviet Pilot has come forward about such to
this day. Stop inventing stories and reporting unprovable things. Bottom
line in both those wars the Arabs lost their Airforce Capabilty to fight
while IAF turned to ground support missions only at the end. And on the
ground things got worse. The Syrians in one Air Strike which every IAF
Plane returned safely home totally unchallanged accept for manually aimed
anti-aircraft-fire from Cira WWII heavy calaber machine guns on turrets,
destroyed the Syrian Equivolent of the War Room/Pentagon with every military
man worth a damn in planing a stratidgy. Where they got into the airspace
over the city was where they had taken out the two SAM Batteries. The
Soviets built the air defense to have overlapping kill zones. I.e., there
are 5 batteries A B C D E . A overlaps the kill zone of B, B
of A and C, C of B and D and D of C and E, E of D.

Take out B and C and you have a larger gap in between the kill zones.
Mission to take out the threat is succesfull as the only important targets
that they protect (anything inside Damascus) is worth risking anything to
take out. The ones further south could be flown around, the mobile units are
too hard to find and hit so left alone usually till they set up and become a
target. But they can usually only fire one and then have to be reloaded
(about an hour long proceedure). Israel tended to ignore them and go for
strategic targets and only took on the SAMS in that war when they were in
the way of that. Israel today makes a air-to-surface missile, once a radar
source is turned on, not even "painting" them it can be fired from about 20
miles out and it will even if they shut down all power hit the mark it is
totally locked in and it flies at low to the ground altitudes to boot. It
makes the US HARM systems old fasioned in that they need to have it paint an
aircraft to lock on. Missiles with HARM systems have been known to take out
the battery after the plane is shot down already. Once a plane is
"painted" the SAM can be fired at will. It takes no countdown no delay is
needed it takes off if they turn off all safeties and push the button. They
arm in flight in about 10 seconds after launch though that safety can be
disabled and they could launch a fully armed SAM ready to explode, the
danger of that is an accidental explosion could then take out the SAM
Launcher and even the command trailer or bunker.

You are totally streching, the Soviets were thought to have flown not during
the Yom Kippur War but for Egypt in the six day war, that according to the
Liberty croud here, that their mission was to listen for proof of Soviet
Envolvement. It is known that Israeli MTBs did face down a Soviet Capital
Ship (Destroyer) when they were fighting to open up the straights. The
Israeli Gun Boats fired accross the Bow of the Soviet ship which did come to
a full stop, signal it would leave the war zone, turned around and left.
Yes it would outclass the smaller but faster and more manuverable MTBs. But
one hit from a Torpedo and their vessal would at best limp home at worst be
sent to the bottom with all hands. A destroyer is not built to take a
torpedo hit and survive. It would just take one good shot and they would go
down fast. A destroyer hit, goes down within a few minutes at best. US
sub-comamanders learned that trick to use against the Japanese Destroyers
when they were held down to long. They would set up a bow shot on one of
the passes and fire all their tubes. It only took one to hit and the spread
insured it would happen. Usually by the time they could then blow thier
ballest and surface the Destroyer was settling on the bottom. Soviets
designed subs for anti sub use. Destroyers were mostly in the even of an
attack on a task group of ships expendable ment to take the hit and sink.
Only two navys in existance care about their sailors surviving. That is the
USA and the British. The Isreali navy accepts that it does not have a large
enough presensce at sea, MTBs know in any real fight they will be considered
expendable if needbe.



--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > -
(Jack White) writes:
>

[snip]

>I also did do a google search to find out what kind of kill ratios
>Soviet Pilots had against the Israelis when Soviet pilots flew for
>Arab Air Forces, but I didn't find anything.

0-5 (that is, 5-0 to IAF), on July 30 1970, the only event of IAF
engaging Soviet pilots (at least the only declassifyed event).


************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[Richard Cranium]

When the reply posting is far more interesting than the original post,
top posting is not only acceptable, it is preferable. That's why some
newsreaders automatically place the response at the top of the thread.

Oh yeah . . . I almost forgot . . . please **** off!


On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:39:35 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:53:02 -0400, > wrote:
>>ROFLOL that's the biggest BS story Ever
>>"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
>>R.J. Goldman
>
>Was it really necessary to quote 180 lines merely to add that small
>comment?
>
>BTW, could you please respect Usenet community values by not
>top-posting in future.
>
>--
>A: top posting
>
>Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
>

[Bill Silvey]

"Richard Cranium" > wrote in message

> When the reply posting is far more interesting than the original post,
> top posting is not only acceptable, it is preferable.

Wrong.

Do a google search sometime and find out just how "acceptable" top-posting
is.

> That's why some
> newsreaders automatically place the response at the top of the thread.

Wrong again. No newsreader automatically places the response at the top of
the "thread". I think you meant "message".

Newsreader software puts the reply where *you* type it, sparky. If you'd
move your flabtabulous arm just a bit and mash your flipper on the mouse
button you'd get the cursor below the quoted text and then your replies
would be un****ed. But I doubt if you'll do that. You're too busy mailing
205 friends a "VIRUS ALERT!!!111oneone" warning that you were forwarded from
Bill Gates himself! (I mean it must be true - it says "Bill Gates" in the
"FROM" line!)

HTH HAND KTHXBYE.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Jack White]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message >...
> Jack White wrote:
> > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > message >...
> >> BTov wrote:
> >>> (Jack White) wrote in message
> >>> >...
> >>>> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
> >>>> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
> >>>> East including Israel.
> >>>
> >>> so what?
> >>>
> >>>> Israel has the best pilots and crews in the Middle East, but the
> >>>> Eurofighter Typhoon is such a superior aircraft with INCREDIBLE BVR
> >>>> capability superior to any aircraft in the Middle East that even
> >>>> though Saudis are lazy and spoiled, the Eurofighter Typhoon will
> >>>> give the Saudis the best Airforce in the Middle East. The only way
> >>>> Israel can gain back Air Superiority over Saudi Arabia would be if
> >>>> Israel were to buy tons of F-22 Raptors.
> >>>
> >>> wutever
> >>>
> >>>> Saudi Arabia has a much bigger GDP than Israel and has Trillions of
> >>>> dollars of Oil Reserves so there's no way Israel can on its own
> >>>> compete with a country like Saudi Arabia in an arms race.
> >>>
> >>> & saudis bemoan poor palistanians while their arab whole is giving
> >>> only 5%.. ;L
> >>>
> >>>> The only way Israel can gain back air superiority is if US
> >>>> taxpayers will again have to pay BILLIONS of dollars like they
> >>>> always do for Israel, this time for Israel to get FREE F-22
> >>>> Raptors from the US Taxpayers.
> >>>
> >>> it may be interesting to test this eurofighter against arrows..
> >>
> >> Arrows are ABMs not SAMs. They are designed to take a Balistic
> >> Missile out at Apogee so nothing hits Israel. They are very
> >> effective at doing that, 100 percent of the tests with real Balistic
> >> Missiles to be interecepted were succesfully hit by the system at
> >> the warhead not the main body as the Patriorts did. The Patriot was
> >> orginally designed to take out high flying aircraft not missiles.
> >> That is why the body of the rocket stage is what got hit by it every
> >> time and the warhead then still fell to earth intact about 1/2 the
> >> time. The US lost most of the first Gulf War Casualties to a "shot
> >> down" SKUD's warhead that hit a building housing a lot of miltiary
> >> personel. The Arrow uses a different system of firing a group of
> >> shaped charges at the warhead secton of the missile and body both.
> >> The real ideal is to force the warhead itself to explode due to the
> >> charges going off on it. Hardly cost effective to shoot down a
> >> plane. Israel has several other means of taking out incoming
> >> aircraft. It has 12 Patriot Batteries, 1000s of SAMs on the ready
> >> and then their air to air capabilities and own air to air misiles
> >> and guns. They never faced even odds 1 to 1 and no matter what
> >> aircraft the enemy flew they shot them all down and lost very few of
> >> their planes to it. I pitty any Arab pilot shot down those at home
> >> confront, he better speak the words I surrender in perfect Hebrew or
> >> he is dead. They common Israeli does not speak the symetic
> >> variation called Arabic. It is not their responsibility to know for
> >> sure the intention of an enemy that comes down in a parachute in
> >> their back yard. Their real responsibility is to shoot first if not
> >> Isreali and ask later.
> >>
> >>
> >> In joint flight manuvers the Israeli Pilots in the Israeli built
> >> jets went up against US pilots in F116s and though supposedly up
> >> against the best of the best they had a "kill" ratio of 5 to 1. For
> >> every simulated hit on them they had simulated a hit of five US top
> >> pilots flying the most sophisticated fighter made in the world at
> >> the time. Arab Air forces run from IAF pilots or they die, that is
> >> always been the only choices they had and still will have even 20
> >> years from now.
> >
> > Look, it's obvious that Israeli pilots are the best in the middle east
> > and perhaps the best in the world, but they're NOT as good as you
> > think they are either.
> > I'll give you some examples of why they're not as good as you think
> > they are.
> > In the Yom Kippur War even Syria shot down AT LEAST 36 Israeli Air
> > Force aircraft in a SINGLE DAY.
>
> You are very correct, however do you care to mention the Syian losses that
> same day? How about that was the only day they had that airforce intact.
> They lost over 90 percent of their entire airforce and pilots in that huge
> engagment. The Syrian Airforce was seen heading toward Israel so Israel
> Scrambled its Norther Fighters that were designated as ready. That is only
> about 50 percent of them. The US Navy would call them the Alert Aircraft
> which would be manned and ready if needed. Israelis at that time due to the
> war, had 1/2 the pilots in the planes ready to be scrambled at a moments
> notice. Syria had sent their entire Airforce thus outnumbering the Israelis
> at first contact about 4 to 1. Israel did loose a total of 36 aircraft in
> that battle but under 30 Syrian Planes limped back to home and not one ever
> penetrated Israeli Airspace, their real objective. That meant the IAF shot
> down 12 - 15 planes for every one they lost in that battle. No one rates an
> airforce facing larger numbers by all aircraft returning safely. That is
> rediculous. Next you will be saying the US army is a joke because they
> loose men every day in Iraq still. Get realistic, best never meant no
> losses and never meant at time high losses, it means what the *final* result
> is. During the Battle of Britain the RAF one night only could get up five
> fighters who each shot down over 7 enemy aircraft and all those RAF planes
> were lost. Who won in the end of the Battle of Britain, not the Luftwaffa
> that is certain. The RAF won that battle by no matter what getting what
> they still could in the air and inflicting heavier losses on the Germans
> than they suffered.

Those are nice stats, but they still don't prove that Israel is as
good as you said in your original post.
If Israel was as good as you say they are, then why did they lose over
100 aircraft and over 800 tanks in the Yom Kippur War?
Israel only had a population of about 3 million back then and was the
size of New Jersey or maybe even smaller back then.
Over 100 aircraft and over 800 tanks are just too many losses for a
country as small as Israel to sustain and still win a war.
Israel deserves an ASTERISK for winning the Yom Kippur War.
It was Operatinal Nickel Grass(A MASSIVE US resupplying effort to
replace destroyed Israeli equipment) that saved Israel's butt and
allowed Israel to win the Yom Kippur War
That's the whole reason that Sadat made peace with Israel.
Sadat proved to himself that Israel was beatable, but he also
discovered that EVEN if he did well enough to beat Israel, he would
still lose because of Operation Nickel Grass or other similar
operations in the future.

>
> ere were 23 SA-6 Sam Batteries in Syria before the start of the Yom
> > Kippur War, and at the END OF THE YOM KIPPUR WAR, the Israeli Air
> > Force was only able to take out 3 of those 23 SA-6 batteries at a
> > great loss of Israeli Aircraft.
>
> Yet they used that to learn they went against better in the Egyptian
> Theater, Syria was a holding action, get it. They were like a thorn not the
> main target of the IAF, Egypt that had recrossed the Cannal was more a
> threat. However, the Israelis only targetted a total of SAM Batteries in
> Syria that their intellegence told them correctly left Damascus open to
> air-raids and they did send in bombers once near the end of the war and hit
> the Syrian verison of the Penatgon killing all the leading stradigists of
> the Syrian Military in one blow. It is not always how many but which ground
> targets you take out. Egypt posed a larger threat in the early part of the
> war that is why the number of IAF planes in the Norhtern Command was so low
> as to not equal the Syrians in number as they had before the war and would
> have gone one to one with even a higher kill ratio. The Israeli Pilots
> could not have the luxury of cover of a wingman while setting up their shot,
> the Syrians could. Had the Command not sent 1/2 the planes from Norther
> Israel on day one of the war to fight the stronger better positioned enemy,
> they would have not even lost the numbers that they had. Wingmen stay with
> their lead, protecting them from being set up for a shot. And if the lead
> misses they switch off and the wingman takes lead and tries again. Best
> shot on a Jet in air to air is from the rear or about 20 degrees off
> straigth on. A wingman's job is to watch for such a set up and break it up
> if needed.
>
> > The IDF GROUND FORCES did take out a few more of those SA-6 batteries,
> > but the Israeli Air Force certainly was NOT up to the challenge of
> > taking on the SA-6 during the Yom Kippur War.
>
> They never tried sir.

I ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY disagree with that statement.
The Israeli Air Force DID TRY and FAIL at trying to take out the SA-6
Sam Batteries, but they suffered GREAT losses and basically decided
that the IAF wasn't up to the job of taking out the SA-6 and left that
job up to the IDF GROND forces.
Out of ALL the weapons systems and aircraft ever used in all the wars
Israel has ever been involved in, the SA-6 during the Yom Kippur War
had the MOST IMPRESSIVE KILL RATIOS against the Israeli Air Force ever
achieved.
It was NOT till Israel recieved F-15s and F-16 during the 80s that
Israel was able to tame the SA-6 in Lebanon, and the SA-6 was OLD
technology by then anyway.
Israel doesn't have aircraft like B-2s, F-117 Nighthawks, or F-22
Raptors and that's why top of the line SAMs are the Israeli Air
Force's Achilles Hell and have probably always been the Israeli Air
Force's Achilles Hell.
BTW, here's proof that the Israeli Air Force did indeed go after the
SA-6 Sam Batteries but did very poorly at dealing with the SA-6 during
the Yom Kippur War.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/phantom2.htm

"Egypt entered the war with 106 SAM batteries, while Syria had a
further 23.
On the morning of Sunday, October 7th, a massive attack was about to
be launched against Egyptian air bases but it was called off in view
of the desperate situation on the Golan Heights. Under operation
"Doogman 5B" (model 5B) the IAF launched dozens of its F-4s and A-4s
against the Syrian SAM array on the Heights. Having gone in with
insufficient intelligence against a deadly opponent, six Phantoms were
lost during that single day. With only a single SAM battery destroyed,
October 7th was a resounding defeat and the IAF avoided confronting
the Syrian SAMs again. By the end of the war the IAF had destroyed
only 3 Syrian batteries, leaving most of the work to IDF ground
forces."


http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_41.html
On October 7, Phantoms launched an attack against Syrian SAM sites,
but the Syrian forces were now equipped with the new Soviet-built SA-6
Gainful mobile surface-to-air missile. Syrian forces were also
equipped with ZSU-23 mobile radar-controlled anti-aircraft artillery.
The SAM-6/ZSU-23 combination proved deadly. No less than six Phantoms
and thirty A-4 Skyhawks were lost in this single day. Very few of
their pilots manage to escape by parachute. At one time, the Israelis
were losing three out of every five aircraft they were sending over
Golan. These losses were clearly unsupportable, and Chief of Staff
Elazer was forced to temporarily abandon air strikes over Golan in
mid-afternoon.

The SA-6 was an unpleasant surprise to the Israelis. Israeli
electronic countermeasures had been designed to counter the earlier
SA-2 and SA-3 radar-guided missiles that had been encountered by the
Americans in Vietnam, but these techniques were useless against the
SA-6. Earlier Soviet SAMs had used command guidance throughout the
entire flight of the missile, but the SA-6 homed in on CW energy
reflected from the illuminated aircraft for the final approach to the
target. The Straight Flush radar that guided the SA-6 operated over a
much wider bandwidth than did the earlier Soviet radars, and used
D-band for illumination and G, H, and I/J-bands for initial
acquisition and initial launch guidance. The Straight Flush codename
is an apparent reference to the five frequencies used by the system.
In the semi-active homing mode, the SA-6's homing head and
rearward-facing reference antenna receive CW command signals in the
I-band. Beacon signals from the missile are in G and H band. The SA-6
apparently also had an alternative infrared-homing system, but I am
not sure if it was actually used.

The early part of the SA-6's flight was guided by radar, but the
Straight Flush radar operated over a much wider bandwidth than that of
the earlier Soviet missiles. The radar ranged over three separate
frequencies during search, acquisition, tracking, and guidance. Before
the war began, not enough was known about these frequencies or about
the ability of the missile to switch between frequencies while in
flight to throw off jamming transmissions. The ALR-36 radar warning
receiver was of little use in picking up these radar signals, since
these emissions were outside the band in which the ALR-36 was designed
to operate. Consequently, Israeli aircraft found it very difficult to
detect a SA-6 launch, and even more difficult to jam the missile while
in flight."



Did you read the quote where it said "October 7th was a resounding
defeat and the IAF avoided confronting the Syrian SAMs again."
The simple truth that the SA-6 scared Israeli pilots during the Yom
Kippur War like nothing has scared them before or since.
There's no shame in the Israeli Air Force deciding not to take on the
SA-6, it was in fact the smart thing to do.
The Israeli Air Force kicked the Syrian and Egyptian Airforce's butts
in the Yom Kippur War, but the SA-6 kicked the Israeli Airforce's Butt
in the Yom Kippur War.









They took out only enough to open Damascus up for the
> air attack on the building all the militiary leadership of Syria were at.
> They then brought down that building that killed every high ranking Officer
> and all the real experience of how to adjust to conditions during a war.
> Read some more on the descission making during that war of the Israeli
> Command. Here is some simple facts on that.
>
> 1) Egypt was the primary enemy, and had to be stopped first and formost.
>
> 2) Until the War with Egypt was won or in total Israeli Control only a
> holding action would be fought with Syria. They would do all they could to
> keep Syrian Forces from over-running the Golan and to keep the large
> airforce of Syria from attacking Israel Proper.
>
> 3) The SAMs were known about and on the Sinai they were the largest threat
> as the IAF would be most active over that airspace. In Syria until the
> Egyptian threat was elimanated to the West, was not a large concern. They
> new the exact posistions of the Syrian Batteries. They knew it would be
> costly to take each out and decided to only open a single coredor at the
> time to be able to hit targets of Command Value in Damascus Proper. They
> took out which meant that the overlap capability for defending Damascus was
> no longer there on one route.
>
> 4) The Egyptians had the Newest SAM batteries that were usually not let out
> of Russia. They were also manned by Soviet Technitians not Egyptian. The
> IAF did take heavy casualites on thier first run in with them, but came up
> with better tactics, Same used by the USA in Vietnam by the A6-Intruders.
> A plane would electronicallly make itself the most important target and as
> soon as targeting radar painted them a special missile was fired that locked
> on to the battery. If the missile got off anyway the plane did a series of
> manouvers many times taking the SAM (SA-7) back to an Egyptian target and by
> flying low enough and then lifting in an agagy-4 climb at the last moment
> the SAM hit what the plane had passed over. They also started using flares
> and attaching baffles to the engines to hide the heat from the exahaust.
> Later they were found to have refined it when they took otu SA-9 sites in
> the Becka Valley only loosing a few drones.
>
>
> It may be of little importance but Israel was going to be on full alert that
> day. The US "sold them a bill of goods" saying that the Egyptians and
> Syrians were not going to attack and the SA-7s were mock ups. So Israels
> only real mistake was to take the word of the Liars in Washington DC and
> Langley West Va.
>
>
>
> > Here's another example, I've read on several different military sites
> > that there were a dozen or more Pakistani Air Force Pilots who went
> > over to arab countries during the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War to
> > see how well they could do against the Isreli Air Force since they had
> > already racked up great kill ratios against the Indians.
> > They wanted to see "how good they really were" as it were against a
> > great air force like the Israelis.
> > They claim that these Pakistanis shot down at least 10 Israeli air
> > craft in the 6 day war and at least 1 Israeli aircraft in the Yom
>
> That would mean they are the only ones that shot down Israeli Aircraft in
> the 6 day war. LOL.
>
>
> > Kippur war without the Israeli Air Force even shooting down 1 of these
> > Pakistani pilots.
> > It's NOT just the Pakistanis who claim this, even this Indian Air
> > Force historian guy who made this Indian Air Force website claims
> > that.
>
> SO then they claim since the IAF only lists 11 planes lost, one in a bad
> landing BTW, that all the planes shot down was by Packestani Pilots. Have

The Israelis claim that Israel lost 10 planes during the 6 day war,
I'm sure the arabs claim something else.
The truth is probably somewhere in between.
I wouldn't say it's written in stone that Israel lost 1o planes during
the 6 day war, it could just as easily have been 15 or 20.


> some more that I can laugh at. BTW I was in that War, and a relative of
> mine was a flight section leader and was one of those planes hit but ejected
> back over Israeli Held positions. He was injured but to good to be kept out
> so he ended the time in the main Command and Communcations Center. I repeat
> *only* 10 IAF Combat Planes were lost to Enemy fire and one of those pilots
> was hit from the ground, not the air on a napalm run against Egyptian Tanks
> that were part of an Armored Column. I guess that was a Packistani Pilot as
> well.
>
> In the Yom Kippur war, a little bit more believable except what front was he
> fighting on? Syrian perhaps in that one engagement, after that there were
> no more air to air fights the Syrian Planes that survived just stood down
> totally. So unless he was part of that then I doubt it as well.

Here's a quote from the Indian site that may clear things up for you.
These are all "CONFIRMED KILLS" according to the Indian Air Force guy.


http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/pakpilots.htm#azam
"Saiful Azam is a not heard of much in aircombat. Azam has the unique
distinction of having kills against airforces of two different
countries. as a young flying officer during the 65 Conflict, Saiful
Azam managed to shoot down an IAF Gnat on Sept 18th, a rarity as such
the Gnat was seldom lost in Aircombat. his victim Fg Off V Mayadev
ejected to become a POW.
Azam participated two years later in the Arab Israeli conflict of June
1967. deputed to the Royal Jordanian Air Force, flying Hunters, the
RJAF Hunters were flown out to the Iraqi Airbase of H-3 in an attempt
to put them out of range of Israeli Air Force. It was here he
accomplished a unique feat, flying in a Hawker Hunter as a No.2 His
formation intercepted an Israeli formation of Four Vautours and Two
Mirage IIIs. One of the Mirage IIIs was flown by Capt. Gideon Dror.
Dror shot down Azam's Wingman, but himself fell to Azam's Guns. Dror
ejected to be taken POW. Moments later, Azam intercepted the
formation of four Vantour Bombers and bought down one of them flown by
Capt Golan, who ejected. . Azam had earlier bought down a Super
Mystere the previous day over Jordan. Azam , being a Bengali did not
fly in the 71 conflict.

In the final reckoning Azam ties up with Alam in terms of kills, but
his tally has a range of kills including the enviable credit of a Mach
2 Mirage III Fighter."

http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
Here's a quote from the New Zealand site about the 6 day war.
"The Six-Day War between Israel and a number of Arab countries in
1967.
During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria
to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots
managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages,
Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF
pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft."

Here's a quote from the New Zealand site about the Yom Kippur War.
"Yom Kippur War, October 1973
During this war 16 PAF pilots volunteered to leave for the Middle East
in order to support Egypt and Syria but by the time they arrived Egypt
had already agreed on a cease-fire. Syria remained in a state of war
against Israel so the PAF pilots became instructors there and formed
the A-flight of 67 Squadron at Dumayr AB. Later on PAF pilot Flt. Lt.
Sattar Alvi was honoured by the Syrian government."




>
> If he was on the Egyptian front and said he shot down a IAF Combat Jet, then
> what day of the war did he do it. The Egyptians used their airforce only 2
> days out of that war. The first day to support their ground assault and the
> next to last day of the war when the SA-7s got taken out of the picture and
> Israelis were buring the dead Soviets in unmarked graves so not to cause
> WWWIII over them having combattants in the war. Nixon would have let loose
> SAC which he had up the entire war to prevent that from being done. Had
> Israelis put on a huge show and tell and not held that secret till about 2
> years ago, Nixon may have sent some of the bombers or missiles in and bye
> bye world. IDF simply took the IDs of those Soviets killed in the taking
> out of the SA-7s and then simply buried them right by the reckage of the
> once command center for the battery. The IDF had the Egptian Army trapped
> and the Syrians on the run, their airforce in ruins in both those nations.
> Again it is not just numbers it is the results. Do you have any ideas of
> how many American B17 crews died in that bobming campaign, but the mission
> was accomplished while the Egyptian and Syrians Missions were not the
> Israeli Missions all ended with the final defeats of both enemies on the
> field. Had not the US Stepped in and told Israel to let supplies into the
> trapped Egyptain Forces they would all have died with out a shot fired in
> another two days. Nothing stood between them and Ciaro and that could have
> meant Israeli Troops and guns hitting that city and cutting all escape off
> and putting a gun to Saddam's head and demanding Unconditional Surrender.
> Israeli Tanks the next day were shelling the outskirts of Damascus. IDF
> Airborn had taken all the roads leading to any escape for them. The plans
> accoridng to the Dyan Memoirs was to start dismantiling Damscus moving in
> for the kill there and to take Ciaro and let the Egyptian Army trapped with
> no drinking water left to die of thirst. That was the mission and they
> accomplished it for all intent and purposes. As to Egyptian Pilot losses
> they IAF shot down killing Saddat's own brother with his entire flight that
> last day they flew. Again the ratios went skyrocketting since the SAMs were
> no longer in action.
>
> It is the final result that counts not the numbers unless the numbers
> aproach 100 percent. In every war Israel started with fewer planes and
> pilots then their enemy, yet in the end they always come out on top. Read
> some more real history by those that fought there and learn.
>
> Pakestani Claims only say the Syrians and Egyptians had no kills at all.
> LOL. And how did they get thier planes there without the US seeing it and
> documenting it. LOL again. Just more Mulsim and Indian (they also lie
> about Israel 1000s of times) lies.

Indians lie about Israel infavor of Pakistanis?
That's about the funniest things I've ever heard.
It's true that back 50 or 60 years ago the liberal Indian Hindus like
Gandhi suppored the Palestinians and Gandhi even opposed to the right
to create Israel.
That really doesn't matter now though since it's the 21st century.
India is Israel's 2nd BEST ally.
Indian Hindus are the MOST pro Israel people on earth after Americans.
It's pretty far fetched to say that an Indian Hindu who's an Indian
Air Force historian or something would make up stuff in favor of
Pakistan and against Israel.
Look at this Indian guy's website ( http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/ ).
It should be obvious that he's a die hard Indian Air Force fan, and
he's probably a fan and friend of Israel as well.



>
>
> > http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/pakpilots.htm
> > Here's the homepage of this Indian site.
> > http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This website from New Zealand claims that Pakistani pilots shot down
> > 10 Israeli aircraft in the 6 day war, and at least 1 Israeli aircraft
> > in the Yom Kippur War.
> > http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
> > Here's the homepage of this site from New Zealand.
> > http://www.scramble.nl/
> >
> > I also did do a google search to find out what kind of kill ratios
> > Soviet Pilots had against the Israelis when Soviet pilots flew for
> > Arab Air Forces, but I didn't find anything.
> >
> >
> > BTW, as even if Israeli pilots are the best in the world, they still
> > can't be in the same league as the Americans or Europeans because of
> > the number of and the quality of equipment that the Europeans and
> > Americans have.
> > I'd even have to put the Spanish Air Force above the Israeli Air Force
> > when the Spanish get all their Eurofighter Typhoons(they have already
> > got their first batch of Eurofighter Typhoons I understand).
> > No matter how good an Israeli pilot in an F-15I or F-16I would be,
> > he/she just CAN'T compete with an American Pilot in an F-22 Raptor or
> > a European pilot in a Eurofighter Typhoon.
> > The Israelis just don't have stuff even close to as good as the Meteor
> > BVR air to air missile for example.
> > Most of Western Europe will have these missiles on their fighter
> > planes soon.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --�
> >> MattA
> >> ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
> >>
> >> Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down
> >> ads to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
> >>
> >> Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
> >> http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/
>
>
>
> --�
> MattA
> ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
>
> Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
> to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
>
> Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
> http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Richard Cranium]

Sorry Silvey. THIS is where the cursor appears in Agent when a
message is opened for reply. As for the rest of your response, please
understand that my post was meant to be ironic. And you are correct .
.. . I did mean "message". I don't understand your reference to
"mailing 205 friends, etc.", unless you're just being a bit of a
dip****. In that case, YOU can un**** this message by copying and
pasting this paragraph to the location of your choice.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 03:56:43 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
> wrote:

>"Richard Cranium" > wrote in message

>> When the reply posting is far more interesting than the original post,
>> top posting is not only acceptable, it is preferable.
>
>Wrong.
>
>Do a google search sometime and find out just how "acceptable" top-posting
>is.
>
>> That's why some
>> newsreaders automatically place the response at the top of the thread.
>
>Wrong again. No newsreader automatically places the response at the top of
>the "thread". I think you meant "message".
>
>Newsreader software puts the reply where *you* type it, sparky. If you'd
>move your flabtabulous arm just a bit and mash your flipper on the mouse
>button you'd get the cursor below the quoted text and then your replies
>would be un****ed. But I doubt if you'll do that. You're too busy mailing
>205 friends a "VIRUS ALERT!!!111oneone" warning that you were forwarded from
>Bill Gates himself! (I mean it must be true - it says "Bill Gates" in the
>"FROM" line!)
>
>HTH HAND KTHXBYE.
>
>--
>http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
>Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
>"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
>I hate furries.
>
>

[[email protected]]

(Richard Cranium) wrote:

>Sorry Silvey. THIS is where the cursor appears in Agent when a
>message is opened for reply.

You're quite correct, BUT...is it such an onerous task to move it
down to the bottom of the text that you want to quote and start
typing your reply there?...let me know if you don't know how to
do that and I'll send detailed instructions... :)
--

-Gord.

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Jack White wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message >...
>> Jack White wrote:
>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>> message >...
>>>> BTov wrote:
>>>>> (Jack White) wrote in message
>>>>> >...
>>>>>> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
>>>>>> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the
>>>>>> Middle East including Israel.
>>>>>
>>>>> so what?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Israel has the best pilots and crews in the Middle East, but the
>>>>>> Eurofighter Typhoon is such a superior aircraft with INCREDIBLE
>>>>>> BVR capability superior to any aircraft in the Middle East that
>>>>>> even though Saudis are lazy and spoiled, the Eurofighter Typhoon
>>>>>> will give the Saudis the best Airforce in the Middle East. The
>>>>>> only way Israel can gain back Air Superiority over Saudi Arabia
>>>>>> would be if Israel were to buy tons of F-22 Raptors.
>>>>>
>>>>> wutever
>>>>>
>>>>>> Saudi Arabia has a much bigger GDP than Israel and has Trillions
>>>>>> of dollars of Oil Reserves so there's no way Israel can on its
>>>>>> own compete with a country like Saudi Arabia in an arms race.
>>>>>
>>>>> & saudis bemoan poor palistanians while their arab whole is giving
>>>>> only 5%.. ;L
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only way Israel can gain back air superiority is if US
>>>>>> taxpayers will again have to pay BILLIONS of dollars like they
>>>>>> always do for Israel, this time for Israel to get FREE F-22
>>>>>> Raptors from the US Taxpayers.
>>>>>
>>>>> it may be interesting to test this eurofighter against arrows..
>>>>
>>>> Arrows are ABMs not SAMs. They are designed to take a Balistic
>>>> Missile out at Apogee so nothing hits Israel. They are very
>>>> effective at doing that, 100 percent of the tests with real
>>>> Balistic Missiles to be interecepted were succesfully hit by the
>>>> system at the warhead not the main body as the Patriorts did. The
>>>> Patriot was orginally designed to take out high flying aircraft
>>>> not missiles. That is why the body of the rocket stage is what got
>>>> hit by it every time and the warhead then still fell to earth
>>>> intact about 1/2 the time. The US lost most of the first Gulf War
>>>> Casualties to a "shot down" SKUD's warhead that hit a building
>>>> housing a lot of miltiary personel. The Arrow uses a different
>>>> system of firing a group of shaped charges at the warhead secton
>>>> of the missile and body both. The real ideal is to force the
>>>> warhead itself to explode due to the charges going off on it.
>>>> Hardly cost effective to shoot down a plane. Israel has several
>>>> other means of taking out incoming aircraft. It has 12 Patriot
>>>> Batteries, 1000s of SAMs on the ready and then their air to air
>>>> capabilities and own air to air misiles and guns. They never
>>>> faced even odds 1 to 1 and no matter what aircraft the enemy flew
>>>> they shot them all down and lost very few of their planes to it. I
>>>> pitty any Arab pilot shot down those at home confront, he better
>>>> speak the words I surrender in perfect Hebrew or he is dead. They
>>>> common Israeli does not speak the symetic variation called Arabic.
>>>> It is not their responsibility to know for sure the intention of
>>>> an enemy that comes down in a parachute in their back yard. Their
>>>> real responsibility is to shoot first if not Isreali and ask later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In joint flight manuvers the Israeli Pilots in the Israeli built
>>>> jets went up against US pilots in F116s and though supposedly up
>>>> against the best of the best they had a "kill" ratio of 5 to 1.
>>>> For every simulated hit on them they had simulated a hit of five
>>>> US top pilots flying the most sophisticated fighter made in the
>>>> world at the time. Arab Air forces run from IAF pilots or they
>>>> die, that is always been the only choices they had and still will
>>>> have even 20 years from now.
>>>
>>> Look, it's obvious that Israeli pilots are the best in the middle
>>> east and perhaps the best in the world, but they're NOT as good as
>>> you think they are either.
>>> I'll give you some examples of why they're not as good as you think
>>> they are.
>>> In the Yom Kippur War even Syria shot down AT LEAST 36 Israeli Air
>>> Force aircraft in a SINGLE DAY.
>>
>> You are very correct, however do you care to mention the Syian
>> losses that same day? How about that was the only day they had that
>> airforce intact. They lost over 90 percent of their entire airforce
>> and pilots in that huge engagment. The Syrian Airforce was seen
>> heading toward Israel so Israel Scrambled its Norther Fighters that
>> were designated as ready. That is only about 50 percent of them.
>> The US Navy would call them the Alert Aircraft which would be manned
>> and ready if needed. Israelis at that time due to the war, had 1/2
>> the pilots in the planes ready to be scrambled at a moments notice.
>> Syria had sent their entire Airforce thus outnumbering the Israelis
>> at first contact about 4 to 1. Israel did loose a total of 36
>> aircraft in that battle but under 30 Syrian Planes limped back to
>> home and not one ever penetrated Israeli Airspace, their real
>> objective. That meant the IAF shot down 12 - 15 planes for every
>> one they lost in that battle. No one rates an airforce facing
>> larger numbers by all aircraft returning safely. That is
>> rediculous. Next you will be saying the US army is a joke because
>> they loose men every day in Iraq still. Get realistic, best never
>> meant no losses and never meant at time high losses, it means what
>> the *final* result is. During the Battle of Britain the RAF one
>> night only could get up five fighters who each shot down over 7
>> enemy aircraft and all those RAF planes were lost. Who won in the
>> end of the Battle of Britain, not the Luftwaffa that is certain.
>> The RAF won that battle by no matter what getting what they still
>> could in the air and inflicting heavier losses on the Germans than
>> they suffered.
>
> Those are nice stats, but they still don't prove that Israel is as
> good as you said in your original post.
> If Israel was as good as you say they are, then why did they lose over
> 100 aircraft and over 800 tanks in the Yom Kippur War?
> Israel only had a population of about 3 million back then and was the
> size of New Jersey or maybe even smaller back then.
> Over 100 aircraft and over 800 tanks are just too many losses for a
> country as small as Israel to sustain and still win a war.
> Israel deserves an ASTERISK for winning the Yom Kippur War.
> It was Operatinal Nickel Grass(A MASSIVE US resupplying effort to
> replace destroyed Israeli equipment) that saved Israel's butt and
> allowed Israel to win the Yom Kippur War
> That's the whole reason that Sadat made peace with Israel.
> Sadat proved to himself that Israel was beatable, but he also
> discovered that EVEN if he did well enough to beat Israel, he would
> still lose because of Operation Nickel Grass or other similar
> operations in the future.
>
>>
>> ere were 23 SA-6 Sam Batteries in Syria before the start of the Yom
>>> Kippur War, and at the END OF THE YOM KIPPUR WAR, the Israeli Air
>>> Force was only able to take out 3 of those 23 SA-6 batteries at a
>>> great loss of Israeli Aircraft.
>>
>> Yet they used that to learn they went against better in the Egyptian
>> Theater, Syria was a holding action, get it. They were like a thorn
>> not the main target of the IAF, Egypt that had recrossed the Cannal
>> was more a threat. However, the Israelis only targetted a total of
>> SAM Batteries in Syria that their intellegence told them correctly
>> left Damascus open to air-raids and they did send in bombers once
>> near the end of the war and hit the Syrian verison of the Penatgon
>> killing all the leading stradigists of the Syrian Military in one
>> blow. It is not always how many but which ground targets you take
>> out. Egypt posed a larger threat in the early part of the war that
>> is why the number of IAF planes in the Norhtern Command was so low
>> as to not equal the Syrians in number as they had before the war and
>> would have gone one to one with even a higher kill ratio. The
>> Israeli Pilots could not have the luxury of cover of a wingman while
>> setting up their shot, the Syrians could. Had the Command not sent
>> 1/2 the planes from Norther Israel on day one of the war to fight
>> the stronger better positioned enemy, they would have not even lost
>> the numbers that they had. Wingmen stay with their lead, protecting
>> them from being set up for a shot. And if the lead misses they
>> switch off and the wingman takes lead and tries again. Best shot on
>> a Jet in air to air is from the rear or about 20 degrees off
>> straigth on. A wingman's job is to watch for such a set up and
>> break it up if needed.
>>
>>> The IDF GROUND FORCES did take out a few more of those SA-6
>>> batteries, but the Israeli Air Force certainly was NOT up to the
>>> challenge of taking on the SA-6 during the Yom Kippur War.
>>
>> They never tried sir.
>
> I ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY disagree with that statement.
> The Israeli Air Force DID TRY and FAIL at trying to take out the SA-6
> Sam Batteries, but they suffered GREAT losses and basically decided
> that the IAF wasn't up to the job of taking out the SA-6 and left that
> job up to the IDF GROND forces.
> Out of ALL the weapons systems and aircraft ever used in all the wars
> Israel has ever been involved in, the SA-6 during the Yom Kippur War
> had the MOST IMPRESSIVE KILL RATIOS against the Israeli Air Force ever
> achieved.
> It was NOT till Israel recieved F-15s and F-16 during the 80s that
> Israel was able to tame the SA-6 in Lebanon, and the SA-6 was OLD
> technology by then anyway.
> Israel doesn't have aircraft like B-2s, F-117 Nighthawks, or F-22
> Raptors and that's why top of the line SAMs are the Israeli Air
> Force's Achilles Hell and have probably always been the Israeli Air
> Force's Achilles Hell.
> BTW, here's proof that the Israeli Air Force did indeed go after the
> SA-6 Sam Batteries but did very poorly at dealing with the SA-6 during
> the Yom Kippur War.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/phantom2.htm
>
> "Egypt entered the war with 106 SAM batteries, while Syria had a
> further 23.
> On the morning of Sunday, October 7th, a massive attack was about to
> be launched against Egyptian air bases but it was called off in view
> of the desperate situation on the Golan Heights. Under operation
> "Doogman 5B" (model 5B) the IAF launched dozens of its F-4s and A-4s
> against the Syrian SAM array on the Heights. Having gone in with
> insufficient intelligence against a deadly opponent, six Phantoms were
> lost during that single day. With only a single SAM battery destroyed,
> October 7th was a resounding defeat and the IAF avoided confronting
> the Syrian SAMs again. By the end of the war the IAF had destroyed
> only 3 Syrian batteries, leaving most of the work to IDF ground
> forces."
>
>
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_41.html
> On October 7, Phantoms launched an attack against Syrian SAM sites,
> but the Syrian forces were now equipped with the new Soviet-built SA-6
> Gainful mobile surface-to-air missile. Syrian forces were also
> equipped with ZSU-23 mobile radar-controlled anti-aircraft artillery.
> The SAM-6/ZSU-23 combination proved deadly. No less than six Phantoms
> and thirty A-4 Skyhawks were lost in this single day. Very few of
> their pilots manage to escape by parachute. At one time, the Israelis
> were losing three out of every five aircraft they were sending over
> Golan. These losses were clearly unsupportable, and Chief of Staff
> Elazer was forced to temporarily abandon air strikes over Golan in
> mid-afternoon.
>
> The SA-6 was an unpleasant surprise to the Israelis. Israeli
> electronic countermeasures had been designed to counter the earlier
> SA-2 and SA-3 radar-guided missiles that had been encountered by the
> Americans in Vietnam, but these techniques were useless against the
> SA-6. Earlier Soviet SAMs had used command guidance throughout the
> entire flight of the missile, but the SA-6 homed in on CW energy
> reflected from the illuminated aircraft for the final approach to the
> target. The Straight Flush radar that guided the SA-6 operated over a
> much wider bandwidth than did the earlier Soviet radars, and used
> D-band for illumination and G, H, and I/J-bands for initial
> acquisition and initial launch guidance. The Straight Flush codename
> is an apparent reference to the five frequencies used by the system.
> In the semi-active homing mode, the SA-6's homing head and
> rearward-facing reference antenna receive CW command signals in the
> I-band. Beacon signals from the missile are in G and H band. The SA-6
> apparently also had an alternative infrared-homing system, but I am
> not sure if it was actually used.
>
> The early part of the SA-6's flight was guided by radar, but the
> Straight Flush radar operated over a much wider bandwidth than that of
> the earlier Soviet missiles. The radar ranged over three separate
> frequencies during search, acquisition, tracking, and guidance. Before
> the war began, not enough was known about these frequencies or about
> the ability of the missile to switch between frequencies while in
> flight to throw off jamming transmissions. The ALR-36 radar warning
> receiver was of little use in picking up these radar signals, since
> these emissions were outside the band in which the ALR-36 was designed
> to operate. Consequently, Israeli aircraft found it very difficult to
> detect a SA-6 launch, and even more difficult to jam the missile while
> in flight."
>
>
>
> Did you read the quote where it said "October 7th was a resounding
> defeat and the IAF avoided confronting the Syrian SAMs again."
> The simple truth that the SA-6 scared Israeli pilots during the Yom
> Kippur War like nothing has scared them before or since.
> There's no shame in the Israeli Air Force deciding not to take on the
> SA-6, it was in fact the smart thing to do.
> The Israeli Air Force kicked the Syrian and Egyptian Airforce's butts
> in the Yom Kippur War, but the SA-6 kicked the Israeli Airforce's Butt
> in the Yom Kippur War.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> They took out only enough to open Damascus up for the
>> air attack on the building all the militiary leadership of Syria
>> were at. They then brought down that building that killed every high
>> ranking Officer and all the real experience of how to adjust to
>> conditions during a war. Read some more on the descission making
>> during that war of the Israeli Command. Here is some simple facts
>> on that.
>>
>> 1) Egypt was the primary enemy, and had to be stopped first and
>> formost.
>>
>> 2) Until the War with Egypt was won or in total Israeli Control only
>> a holding action would be fought with Syria. They would do all they
>> could to keep Syrian Forces from over-running the Golan and to keep
>> the large airforce of Syria from attacking Israel Proper.
>>
>> 3) The SAMs were known about and on the Sinai they were the largest
>> threat as the IAF would be most active over that airspace. In Syria
>> until the Egyptian threat was elimanated to the West, was not a
>> large concern. They new the exact posistions of the Syrian
>> Batteries. They knew it would be costly to take each out and
>> decided to only open a single coredor at the time to be able to hit
>> targets of Command Value in Damascus Proper. They took out which
>> meant that the overlap capability for defending Damascus was no
>> longer there on one route.
>>
>> 4) The Egyptians had the Newest SAM batteries that were usually not
>> let out of Russia. They were also manned by Soviet Technitians not
>> Egyptian. The IAF did take heavy casualites on thier first run in
>> with them, but came up with better tactics, Same used by the USA in
>> Vietnam by the A6-Intruders. A plane would electronicallly make
>> itself the most important target and as soon as targeting radar
>> painted them a special missile was fired that locked on to the
>> battery. If the missile got off anyway the plane did a series of
>> manouvers many times taking the SAM (SA-7) back to an Egyptian
>> target and by flying low enough and then lifting in an agagy-4 climb
>> at the last moment the SAM hit what the plane had passed over. They
>> also started using flares and attaching baffles to the engines to
>> hide the heat from the exahaust. Later they were found to have
>> refined it when they took otu SA-9 sites in the Becka Valley only
>> loosing a few drones.
>>
>>
>> It may be of little importance but Israel was going to be on full
>> alert that day. The US "sold them a bill of goods" saying that the
>> Egyptians and Syrians were not going to attack and the SA-7s were
>> mock ups. So Israels only real mistake was to take the word of the
>> Liars in Washington DC and Langley West Va.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Here's another example, I've read on several different military
>>> sites that there were a dozen or more Pakistani Air Force Pilots
>>> who went over to arab countries during the 6 Day War and the Yom
>>> Kippur War to see how well they could do against the Isreli Air
>>> Force since they had already racked up great kill ratios against
>>> the Indians. They wanted to see "how good they really were" as it
>>> were against a great air force like the Israelis.
>>> They claim that these Pakistanis shot down at least 10 Israeli air
>>> craft in the 6 day war and at least 1 Israeli aircraft in the Yom
>>
>> That would mean they are the only ones that shot down Israeli
>> Aircraft in the 6 day war. LOL.
>>
>>
>>> Kippur war without the Israeli Air Force even shooting down 1 of
>>> these Pakistani pilots.
>>> It's NOT just the Pakistanis who claim this, even this Indian Air
>>> Force historian guy who made this Indian Air Force website claims
>>> that.
>>
>> SO then they claim since the IAF only lists 11 planes lost, one in
>> a bad landing BTW, that all the planes shot down was by Packestani
>> Pilots. Have
>
> The Israelis claim that Israel lost 10 planes during the 6 day war,
> I'm sure the arabs claim something else.
> The truth is probably somewhere in between.
> I wouldn't say it's written in stone that Israel lost 1o planes during
> the 6 day war, it could just as easily have been 15 or 20.
>
>
>> some more that I can laugh at. BTW I was in that War, and a
>> relative of mine was a flight section leader and was one of those
>> planes hit but ejected back over Israeli Held positions. He was
>> injured but to good to be kept out so he ended the time in the main
>> Command and Communcations Center. I repeat *only* 10 IAF Combat
>> Planes were lost to Enemy fire and one of those pilots was hit from
>> the ground, not the air on a napalm run against Egyptian Tanks that
>> were part of an Armored Column. I guess that was a Packistani Pilot
>> as well.
>>
>> In the Yom Kippur war, a little bit more believable except what
>> front was he fighting on? Syrian perhaps in that one engagement,
>> after that there were no more air to air fights the Syrian Planes
>> that survived just stood down totally. So unless he was part of
>> that then I doubt it as well.
>
> Here's a quote from the Indian site that may clear things up for you.
> These are all "CONFIRMED KILLS" according to the Indian Air Force guy.
>
>
> http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/pakpilots.htm#azam
> "Saiful Azam is a not heard of much in aircombat. Azam has the unique
> distinction of having kills against airforces of two different
> countries. as a young flying officer during the 65 Conflict, Saiful
> Azam managed to shoot down an IAF Gnat on Sept 18th, a rarity as such
> the Gnat was seldom lost in Aircombat. his victim Fg Off V Mayadev
> ejected to become a POW.
> Azam participated two years later in the Arab Israeli conflict of June
> 1967. deputed to the Royal Jordanian Air Force, flying Hunters, the
> RJAF Hunters were flown out to the Iraqi Airbase of H-3 in an attempt
> to put them out of range of Israeli Air Force. It was here he
> accomplished a unique feat, flying in a Hawker Hunter as a No.2 His
> formation intercepted an Israeli formation of Four Vautours and Two
> Mirage IIIs. One of the Mirage IIIs was flown by Capt. Gideon Dror.
> Dror shot down Azam's Wingman, but himself fell to Azam's Guns. Dror
> ejected to be taken POW. Moments later, Azam intercepted the
> formation of four Vantour Bombers and bought down one of them flown by
> Capt Golan, who ejected. . Azam had earlier bought down a Super
> Mystere the previous day over Jordan. Azam , being a Bengali did not
> fly in the 71 conflict.
>
> In the final reckoning Azam ties up with Alam in terms of kills, but
> his tally has a range of kills including the enviable credit of a Mach
> 2 Mirage III Fighter."
>
> http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
> Here's a quote from the New Zealand site about the 6 day war.
> "The Six-Day War between Israel and a number of Arab countries in
> 1967.
> During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria
> to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots
> managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages,
> Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF
> pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft."
>
> Here's a quote from the New Zealand site about the Yom Kippur War.
> "Yom Kippur War, October 1973
> During this war 16 PAF pilots volunteered to leave for the Middle East
> in order to support Egypt and Syria but by the time they arrived Egypt
> had already agreed on a cease-fire. Syria remained in a state of war
> against Israel so the PAF pilots became instructors there and formed
> the A-flight of 67 Squadron at Dumayr AB. Later on PAF pilot Flt. Lt.
> Sattar Alvi was honoured by the Syrian government."
>
>
>
>
>>
>> If he was on the Egyptian front and said he shot down a IAF Combat
>> Jet, then what day of the war did he do it. The Egyptians used their
>> airforce only 2 days out of that war. The first day to support
>> their ground assault and the next to last day of the war when the
>> SA-7s got taken out of the picture and Israelis were buring the dead
>> Soviets in unmarked graves so not to cause WWWIII over them having
>> combattants in the war. Nixon would have let loose SAC which he had
>> up the entire war to prevent that from being done. Had Israelis put
>> on a huge show and tell and not held that secret till about 2 years
>> ago, Nixon may have sent some of the bombers or missiles in and bye
>> bye world. IDF simply took the IDs of those Soviets killed in the
>> taking out of the SA-7s and then simply buried them right by the
>> reckage of the once command center for the battery. The IDF had the
>> Egptian Army trapped and the Syrians on the run, their airforce in
>> ruins in both those nations. Again it is not just numbers it is the
>> results. Do you have any ideas of how many American B17 crews died
>> in that bobming campaign, but the mission was accomplished while the
>> Egyptian and Syrians Missions were not the Israeli Missions all
>> ended with the final defeats of both enemies on the field. Had not
>> the US Stepped in and told Israel to let supplies into the trapped
>> Egyptain Forces they would all have died with out a shot fired in
>> another two days. Nothing stood between them and Ciaro and that
>> could have meant Israeli Troops and guns hitting that city and
>> cutting all escape off and putting a gun to Saddam's head and
>> demanding Unconditional Surrender. Israeli Tanks the next day were
>> shelling the outskirts of Damascus. IDF Airborn had taken all the
>> roads leading to any escape for them. The plans accoridng to the
>> Dyan Memoirs was to start dismantiling Damscus moving in for the
>> kill there and to take Ciaro and let the Egyptian Army trapped with
>> no drinking water left to die of thirst. That was the mission and
>> they accomplished it for all intent and purposes. As to Egyptian
>> Pilot losses they IAF shot down killing Saddat's own brother with
>> his entire flight that last day they flew. Again the ratios went
>> skyrocketting since the SAMs were no longer in action.
>>
>> It is the final result that counts not the numbers unless the numbers
>> aproach 100 percent. In every war Israel started with fewer planes
>> and pilots then their enemy, yet in the end they always come out on
>> top. Read some more real history by those that fought there and
>> learn.
>>
>> Pakestani Claims only say the Syrians and Egyptians had no kills at
>> all. LOL. And how did they get thier planes there without the US
>> seeing it and documenting it. LOL again. Just more Mulsim and
>> Indian (they also lie about Israel 1000s of times) lies.
>
> Indians lie about Israel infavor of Pakistanis?
> That's about the funniest things I've ever heard.
> It's true that back 50 or 60 years ago the liberal Indian Hindus like
> Gandhi suppored the Palestinians and Gandhi even opposed to the right
> to create Israel.
> That really doesn't matter now though since it's the 21st century.
> India is Israel's 2nd BEST ally.
> Indian Hindus are the MOST pro Israel people on earth after Americans.
> It's pretty far fetched to say that an Indian Hindu who's an Indian
> Air Force historian or something would make up stuff in favor of
> Pakistan and against Israel.
> Look at this Indian guy's website ( http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/ ).
> It should be obvious that he's a die hard Indian Air Force fan, and
> he's probably a fan and friend of Israel as well.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/pakpilots.htm
>>> Here's the homepage of this Indian site.
>>> http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This website from New Zealand claims that Pakistani pilots shot down
>>> 10 Israeli aircraft in the 6 day war, and at least 1 Israeli
>>> aircraft in the Yom Kippur War.
>>> http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
>>> Here's the homepage of this site from New Zealand.
>>> http://www.scramble.nl/
>>>
>>> I also did do a google search to find out what kind of kill ratios
>>> Soviet Pilots had against the Israelis when Soviet pilots flew for
>>> Arab Air Forces, but I didn't find anything.
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, as even if Israeli pilots are the best in the world, they still
>>> can't be in the same league as the Americans or Europeans because of
>>> the number of and the quality of equipment that the Europeans and
>>> Americans have.
>>> I'd even have to put the Spanish Air Force above the Israeli Air
>>> Force when the Spanish get all their Eurofighter Typhoons(they have
>>> already got their first batch of Eurofighter Typhoons I understand).
>>> No matter how good an Israeli pilot in an F-15I or F-16I would be,
>>> he/she just CAN'T compete with an American Pilot in an F-22 Raptor
>>> or a European pilot in a Eurofighter Typhoon.
>>> The Israelis just don't have stuff even close to as good as the
>>> Meteor BVR air to air missile for example.
>>> Most of Western Europe will have these missiles on their fighter
>>> planes soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --�
>>>> MattA
>>>> ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
>>>>
>>>> Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down
>>>> ads to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
>>>>
>>>> Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/
>>
>>
>>
>> --�
>> MattA
>> ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
>>
>> Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down
>> ads to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
>>
>> Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
>> http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

Same reason the US it turns out was loosing 2 - 3 aircraft a day over North
Vietnam and sometimes more than that. No nation had faced the newest SAMS
yet and that is how they got shot down in the early days of the war. Every
time they went up against the enemy Planes it was the enemy that came up the
looser. Later they came up tactics that worked against those SAMs that were
the cover for the Ground forces and in the end their loses dropped to a
lower level and they drove the Egyptian and Syrian Airforces totally from
the sky. If they were not that good howcome it was only IAF planes flying
by the time of the ceace fire? They took on two airforces each with as many
aircraft as Israel had (that means 2 times the numbers) and Egypt had soviet
Technitians manning the then latest SA version of SAM Missile Batteries that
covered the entire area.

Being best is not always about numbers of casualties but more about the who
wins the final battles and the war because of the way they fought. The IAF
cleared the skies of the enemy air power, took out just enough of the SAM
Sites to create openings. They in fact bombed the Port of Alexander the
second day of that war. Tell me how long before Doolittle bombed the
Japanese after Pearl Harbor? You have blinders on as the you keep
repeating to everyone your casualty figures and many here tell you so what?
Israeli Pilots for the most part managed to eject. Unlike the Islamic
Counter Parts they did their best to bet behind their lines and eject when
to severly damaged. Where was that Egyptian Air Force when the Israelis
built thier pontoon Bridges accross the Canal and crossed over it with their
men and tanks so nicely lined up for the Egyptians. What little was left of
them was not flying anymore in reserve to put up one last battle for Ciaro
that is where they were, to protect their Saddat and his Ministers. Where
were they when the Egyptian Army was being forced with thier backs to the
canal (rancid sea water) and boxed in on the other three sides if the IAF
was so bad as you want us to falsly think? They stayed out of the sky
knowing to fly was to die for them. IAF controlled the skies at that point.
Yes they lost 100 planes but not 100 pilots 28 of them were back up again
the next day in another aircraft. 32 were hospilalized for common things
that happen to many pilots when the eject from thier aircraft, burns, broken
arms and legs and the like. Many were in fact taken prisoner but some of
them were liberated within an hour by IDF Point units (furthest out units in
front of the advancing troops). In all less then 15 percent of the pilots
died. Which means they lived to fly again if needed. If I were you I would
not look to the past performances of the IDF, but what since then they
proved by actions capable of doing. There are very few pilots that flew in
the Yom Kippur war that would be used as pilots today. How about that
presission raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Facilities within a block of 3
embassies that did not get a scratch. And that was not with "smart bombs"
at all that was with Iron Bombs, dumb ones at that. There are at least 100
missions that they flew in the M.E. in the last couple of years. In
Lebanon, within the Becka Valley where the syrians put up SAM sites, they
took them out without so much as one lost plane. And the weapons they used
were 100 percent Israeli made. The planes were US built but the smart
drones, the electronics to make the small drone look like a fighter-bomber
to radar and the missies they used to destroy the Command Center of the
battery was all designed and made in Israel. The US in actuallity is buying
dronnes from Israel.

Get the idea yet?


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Richard Cranium]

No, it's certainly not a big deal to move text down. The fact is that
many of the messages I respond to on this NG are voluminous loads of
crap that I usually replace (to save bandwidth) with a simple:

<<<<<Snip>>>>>

Posting at the bottom does make sense if one wants and/or expects
others to read an entire thread chronologically. However,
soc.culture.palestine is so full of morons (and I recognize that I may
be one of them) that most things should only be posted/read once,
under penalty of loss of brain cells. Indeed, many things here would
be best typed by the author-moron and totally deleted before posting.
I don't know if the same applies to the other affected NG.


On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:38:16 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(Richard Cranium) wrote:
>
>>Sorry Silvey. THIS is where the cursor appears in Agent when a
>>message is opened for reply.
>
>You're quite correct, BUT...is it such an onerous task to move it
>down to the bottom of the text that you want to quote and start
>typing your reply there?...let me know if you don't know how to
>do that and I'll send detailed instructions... :)
>--
>
>-Gord.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Richard Cranium wrote:
> When the reply posting is far more interesting than the original post,
> top posting is not only acceptable, it is preferable. That's why some
> newsreaders automatically place the response at the top of the thread.


It makes it considerably more difficult to follow a thread. The only thing
proper bottom posting requires is trimming quotations to one or two paragraphs
max. Then you have an excellent, quite readable post.

Most top posters just reply to the comment and don't bother to trim anything off
the bottom. They add a tremendous amount of unnecessary bandwidth to any
newsgroup.

I prefer that I be able to read both the reference and the reply without having
to scroll excessively. I don't see that as too much to want.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Richard Cranium]

Well if a Schnerd says it, I'm sure that Mr. McCarthy agrees.
Therefore, I disagree and will top post this response in opposition.

BTW - did you really bang Candace??

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:39:52 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>Richard Cranium wrote:
>> When the reply posting is far more interesting than the original post,
>> top posting is not only acceptable, it is preferable. That's why some
>> newsreaders automatically place the response at the top of the message.
>
>
>It makes it considerably more difficult to follow a thread. The only thing
>proper bottom posting requires is trimming quotations to one or two paragraphs
>max. Then you have an excellent, quite readable post.
>
>Most top posters just reply to the comment and don't bother to trim anything off
>the bottom. They add a tremendous amount of unnecessary bandwidth to any
>newsgroup.
>
>I prefer that I be able to read both the reference and the reply without having
>to scroll excessively. I don't see that as too much to want.
>
>
>--
>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>

>http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
>
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Richard Cranium wrote:
> Well if a Schnerd says it, I'm sure that Mr. McCarthy agrees.
> Therefore, I disagree and will top post this response in opposition.
>
> BTW - did you really bang Candace??


Of course. I left her smoking.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[[email protected]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

>Richard Cranium wrote:
>> Well if a Schnerd says it, I'm sure that Mr. McCarthy agrees.
>> Therefore, I disagree and will top post this response in opposition.
>>
>> BTW - did you really bang Candace??
>
>
>Of course. I left her smoking.

A cigarette one assumes?
--

-Gord.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> BTW - did you really bang Candace??
>>
>> Of course. I left her smoking.
>
> A cigarette one assumes?


It would be ungentlemanly of me to elaborate.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Arie Kazachin wrote:
> In message > - "Matt A.00 01 is
> Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
>>
>> Arie Kazachin wrote:
>
> [self snip. I know what I wrote]
>
>>
>> The IDF intelegence deny that happened as the CIA asked them not to
>> disclose it. The world was afraid that Nixon had gone off the deep
>> end and would use SAC Bombers already airborn 24 hours a day and
>> fire the misiles in the Silos at the Russians as he warned them he
>> would if they did what you say. There is no declasified information
>> on Russian Pilots flying missions for the Arab side to this day.
>> There are of course the rhumors that it happened but no IAF pilot,
>> no Arab Pilot, and no Soviet Pilot has come forward about such to
>> this day. Stop inventing stories and reporting unprovable things.
>> Bottom
>
> [snip. Lost patience to correct what's below after the line above. ]
>
> Despite your baseless claims, it had LONG SINCE beed declassified and
> appeared in books and papers. The book "The sky is not the limit" had
> been printed in 1990 and it includes this battle description, so the
> declassification came before 1990. Out of the 5 downed MiG-21s 3 were
> downed by Mirage-IIICJ and two by F-4E. The pilots of Mirages were:
> Asher Snir, "Avik", Yiftah Spector and the pilots of F-4Es were:
> Aviem Sela and Avihu Ben-Nun. Find the pilots and ask them :-)
> or do some "googling". You'll also probably get it at
> "http://www.iaf.org.il/" somewhere under "history". Unfortunately I
> can't access it at home - the site designers so heavily "optimized
> for MS IE" that my Netscape can't show it correctly.
>
>
>
************************************************** **************************
**
> * Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail:
> *
>
************************************************** **************************
**
> NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name.
> Sorry, SPAM trap. ___ .__/ |
> | O /
> _/ /
> | | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
> | |
> | | |
> | | /O\
> | _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
> | * / \ o ++ O ++ o
> | | |
> | |<
> \ \_)
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \_|

Where did it say the downed Mig Pilots were Soviets. That was the issue
that you posed and not what planes were involved. Is that why you simply
snipped out your previous words and said you knew what you posted. Should I
put back those quotes I retain the posts I download for the highest number
of days one can enter in that option on OE, I think that is 9,999 days. My
sent copies of all posts is automaticaly kept and I could find it there as
well till I decide it is too old to bother keeping usually about 2 years for
most posts and 3 for business emails sent out from here. I Also if I deem
it important enough flag the sent message and my cleanup is done by a 2
rules in OE.

Rule Sent CLean 1: In SENT folder if Message is flagged Stop executing
message rules.

Rule Sent CLean 2: In SENT folder if message older than 742 days Delete
Message stop executing rules.

Real easy to keep long enough and self clean every time I run OE. So I
unlike you do know what I responded to and you seem to forgotten.

As to 1990 My MS is is Comp Sci, but I hold an associates in Visual arts (NY
School of Vissual Arts) and a BA in History. Every professor would have
called 1990 still recently. The book was written and published (I do have a
copy of it) in 1990, the source is documented and if you check the
documentation out, the second step of researching a topic. That is one
reads it in a footnoted or endnoted source and then goes to the source that
the author used. You would find it was infact declasified only the prior
year 1989. A source is in Historical Terms considered new or recent till it
has had 20 years of reviewing for any mistakes by other historians. Now
that would take that off the "recently" list in 2009 not before as I was
taught.

There are books out on the Battle of Britain written 10 years after the war
using documents that were declasified rigfht after the War. Later many
mistakes as to pertant facts still came out that proved the conculusions of
those Historians wrong. I.E. the exact fighter capacity of the RAF at the
time of the Munich Conference. The first set of documents indicated 20
times the number of fighters then were really there and usefull. That
document came out just after the end of the war. 15 years later a military
historian after talking with mechanics at various air fields at that time,
found a flaw in how the numbers were generated. The document counted old WW
I Biplanes and unarmed trainers as if they were viable fighters. Planes
being scrapped at that time were also counted by the orders of the Air
Marshal of the time. He believed their were Nazi Agents that had access to
the documents and wanted them to think Britain was a lot better armed and
ready than it was.

That is why any good historian will 'think of anything available for less
than 20 years as recent. Real good researching Historians usually leave
anything of the last 20 years as "current events" as it is too knew to
uncover the historical parts of it other then at the most trivial levels.' -
Dr. Buchsbaumb U. Of Prague and Pace University after 1969.


I used to have some of his books and attended 3 of his classes. He escaped
from Hiltler and worked in British Intellegence during WWII and returned to
his home in 1945 taught at Prague and during that famous spring of freedom
published 2 books he had hidden from the Communists then as they fell to the
Warsaw Pack was away on a lecture in London. He and his wife stayed out of
that country and came to the USA. Apon my return and finishing Physical
Rehab for the wounds in action in '67 I attended that school (Pace U) at
their Pleasantville Campus (Westchester County NY) where he was teaching.
He was one of my proffessors and my advisor. He gave "F" on papers that had
too many sources under 20 years old. No topic that came into being during
that 20 year window was ever accepted.

I will abide by his definition of recent not yours, thank you.


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > - "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew
Ackerman" > writes:
>
>Arie Kazachin wrote:

[self snip. I know what I wrote]

>
>The IDF intelegence deny that happened as the CIA asked them not to disclose
>it. The world was afraid that Nixon had gone off the deep end and would use
>SAC Bombers already airborn 24 hours a day and fire the misiles in the Silos
>at the Russians as he warned them he would if they did what you say. There
>is no declasified information on Russian Pilots flying missions for the Arab
>side to this day. There are of course the rhumors that it happened but no
>IAF pilot, no Arab Pilot, and no Soviet Pilot has come forward about such to
>this day. Stop inventing stories and reporting unprovable things. Bottom

[snip. Lost patience to correct what's below after the line above. ]

Despite your baseless claims, it had LONG SINCE beed declassified and
appeared in books and papers. The book "The sky is not the limit" had been
printed in 1990 and it includes this battle description, so the
declassification came before 1990. Out of the 5 downed MiG-21s 3 were
downed by Mirage-IIICJ and two by F-4E. The pilots of Mirages were:
Asher Snir, "Avik", Yiftah Spector and the pilots of F-4Es were:
Aviem Sela and Avihu Ben-Nun. Find the pilots and ask them :-)
or do some "googling". You'll also probably get it at
"http://www.iaf.org.il/" somewhere under "history". Unfortunately I can't
access it at home - the site designers so heavily "optimized for MS IE" that
my Netscape can't show it correctly.


************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...
> Arie Kazachin wrote:
> > In message > -
> > (Jack White) writes:
><snip>

> The IDF intelegence deny that happened as the CIA asked them not to
disclose
> it. The world was afraid that Nixon had gone off the deep end and would
use
> SAC Bombers already airborn 24 hours a day and fire the misiles in the
Silos
> at the Russians as he warned them he would if they did what you say.
There
> is no declasified information on Russian Pilots flying missions for the
Arab
> side to this day.

Matt, this is nonsence.

It appears to me that YOU don't know about this but prefer to make the whole
topic a matter of some conspiracy theories and similar BS.

See the article "Red Stars over Egypt", by Mikhael Zhirokhov, published in
the British mag Air Pictorial, June, July, and August 2001: it reveals
almost everything about the Soviets in Egypt through the 1960s and 1970s.
Even such Soviet "Top Guns" like Oleg Tsoy (currently senior test pilot at
Sukhoi) were there and have flown MiGs in Egyptian markings.

> There are of course the rhumors that it happened but no
> IAF pilot, no Arab Pilot, and no Soviet Pilot has come forward about such
to
> this day. Stop inventing stories and reporting unprovable things. Bottom
> line in both those wars the Arabs lost their Airforce Capabilty to fight
> while IAF turned to ground support missions only at the end.

Even more nonsence.

The Egyptians trained according to the Soviet doctrine in the 1960s and that
was the reason why they were unable to fight in 1967. They (the Egyptians)
went though a very painfull process of re-learning the basics of the
air-to-air combat at low levels during the War of Attrition. During this
process they re-wrote most of the Soviet combat manuals - especially those
for MiG-17, MiG-21, and Su-7. In 1970 the Soviets still had the same
approach to the quesitons of gunnery training and air-to-air combat like
before the Six Day War. By 1972, however, even they started teaching the
Syrians accordingly (only not their own pilots).

Could you ask yourself why?

> And on the
> ground things got worse. The Syrians in one Air Strike which every IAF
> Plane returned safely home totally unchallanged accept for manually aimed
> anti-aircraft-fire from Cira WWII heavy calaber machine guns on turrets,
> destroyed the Syrian Equivolent of the War Room/Pentagon with every
military
> man worth a damn in planing a stratidgy.

This is laughable. Where is this from?

Do you know what exactly was hit on 10 October? Where was the Syrian "War
Room"? You don't really believe it was placed in the middle of Damascus, or?

> Where they got into the airspace
> over the city was where they had taken out the two SAM Batteries.

The strike against the Syrian Army HQs involved no attacks against the SAM
batteries: the only such strikes on the Golan front were flown on the
morning of 7 October. Two F-4Es were shot down by SA-6s, two by ZSU-23-4s,
and two by MiG-21s for one SA-6 site and two MiGs in exchange.

> The
> Soviets built the air defense to have overlapping kill zones. I.e., there
> are 5 batteries A B C D E . A overlaps the kill zone of B,
B
> of A and C, C of B and D and D of C and E, E of D.
>
> Take out B and C and you have a larger gap in between the kill zones.

Not even the Syrian air defences along Golan were organized according to
this (indeed Soviet) doctrine. They were organized according to Arab
experiences - with the help of Soviet weapons.

> Mission to take out the threat is succesfull as the only important targets
> that they protect (anything inside Damascus) is worth risking anything to
> take out. The ones further south could be flown around, the mobile units
are
> too hard to find and hit so left alone usually till they set up and become
a
> target. But they can usually only fire one and then have to be reloaded
> (about an hour long proceedure). Israel tended to ignore them and go for
> strategic targets and only took on the SAMS in that war when they were in
> the way of that.

Wrong without an end. The Israelis first hit the wall with their forehead
trying to target SAM-sites about which they didn't even know where these
should have been. The result was the Operation Dogman 5 ("Plan 5" or
something similar), which ended with such a catastrophe for the unit better
known in the public as the "201st Sqn" (50% loss in a single mission). Then
they learned the lesson and started flying interdiction strikes around the
Syrian SAM-belt, and CAS in the areas on the edges of the Egyptian SAM-belt.
Nevertheless, their Skyhawks had to fly CAS over Golan and on Sinai, and
their losses (not only to the SAMs, but foremost to MiGs and ZSU-23-4s) were
staggering - until the Arabs spent most of their SAMs, so that the IDF/AF
was free to maneuver.

> Israel today makes a air-to-surface missile, once a radar
> source is turned on, not even "painting" them it can be fired from about
20
> miles out and it will even if they shut down all power hit the mark it is
> totally locked in and it flies at low to the ground altitudes to boot. It
> makes the US HARM systems old fasioned in that they need to have it paint
an
> aircraft to lock on. Missiles with HARM systems have been known to take
out
> the battery after the plane is shot down already.

And which missile should this be, please? Not the "Purple Fist" by accident?

If yes, be informed that this is actually the US-produced AGM-78 Standard
ARM, taken out of service in US military already in the late 1980s...

The "real news" to this topic is the Israeli-built Harpy ARM-UAV, capable of
cruising at a very low speed for hours over the battlefield and then
targeting only the radars specifically programmed into its seeker head, by a
near vertical "kamikaze-style" dive on their antennas.

> You are totally streching, the Soviets were thought to have flown not
during
> the Yom Kippur War but for Egypt in the six day war, that according to the
> Liberty croud here, that their mission was to listen for proof of Soviet
> Envolvement.

You're mixing almost everything. The Six Day War was fought in 1967, and
this was the war during which the Israelis attacked USS Liberty. During this
war there were only 35 Soviet instructors in Egypt, and these took no part
in fighting against Israel at all.

The number of Soviet "advisors" was constantly increasing since the end of
the Six Day War and during the War of Attrition, fought (actually) 1967-1973
(officially between 1968 and 1970), reaching the pike in March 1970, when a
whole Soviet air defence divison was deployed to Egypt. In 1972 Sadat
expelled most of the Soviet instructors out of Egypt, so that by 1973 there
were not many of them left there to fight at all. The 154th SAF (equipped
with MiG-25Rs) was deployed to Cairo West in the final days of the war and
flew only a handfull of sorties before the armistice.

Thus, during the October/Teshreen War, fought in 1973, the Soviets flew no
air battles against the Israelis: even East Germans, Poles, Noth Koreans,
Pakistanis, all the possible Arabs - and one British - did, just no Soviets.

BTW, the Soviets also flew combat sorties for Iraqis during the war with
Iran (or is this another "big secret" in your opinion?): two were killed
while flying MiG-27s, at least two more while flying MiG-25s - all in air
combats with Iranian F-14s. One more was shot down while flying MiG-27 by
Iranian Phantoms, but he survived.

In exchange they shot down nothing.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Arie Kazachin wrote:
>>> In message > -
>>> (Jack White) writes:
>> <snip>
>
>> The IDF intelegence deny that happened as the CIA asked them not to
> disclose
>> it. The world was afraid that Nixon had gone off the deep end and
>> would
> use
>> SAC Bombers already airborn 24 hours a day and fire the misiles in
>> the
> Silos
>> at the Russians as he warned them he would if they did what you say.
> There
>> is no declasified information on Russian Pilots flying missions for
>> the
> Arab
>> side to this day.
>
> Matt, this is nonsence.
>
> It appears to me that YOU don't know about this but prefer to make
> the whole topic a matter of some conspiracy theories and similar BS.
>
> See the article "Red Stars over Egypt", by Mikhael Zhirokhov,
> published in the British mag Air Pictorial, June, July, and August
> 2001: it reveals almost everything about the Soviets in Egypt through
> the 1960s and 1970s. Even such Soviet "Top Guns" like Oleg Tsoy
> (currently senior test pilot at Sukhoi) were there and have flown
> MiGs in Egyptian markings.
>
>> There are of course the rhumors that it happened but no
>> IAF pilot, no Arab Pilot, and no Soviet Pilot has come forward about
>> such
> to
>> this day. Stop inventing stories and reporting unprovable things.
>> Bottom line in both those wars the Arabs lost their Airforce
>> Capabilty to fight while IAF turned to ground support missions only
>> at the end.
>
> Even more nonsence.
>
> The Egyptians trained according to the Soviet doctrine in the 1960s
> and that was the reason why they were unable to fight in 1967. They
> (the Egyptians) went though a very painfull process of re-learning
> the basics of the air-to-air combat at low levels during the War of
> Attrition. During this process they re-wrote most of the Soviet
> combat manuals - especially those for MiG-17, MiG-21, and Su-7. In
> 1970 the Soviets still had the same approach to the quesitons of
> gunnery training and air-to-air combat like before the Six Day War.
> By 1972, however, even they started teaching the Syrians accordingly
> (only not their own pilots).
>
> Could you ask yourself why?
>
>> And on the
>> ground things got worse. The Syrians in one Air Strike which every
>> IAF Plane returned safely home totally unchallanged accept for
>> manually aimed anti-aircraft-fire from Cira WWII heavy calaber
>> machine guns on turrets, destroyed the Syrian Equivolent of the War
>> Room/Pentagon with every
> military
>> man worth a damn in planing a stratidgy.
>
> This is laughable. Where is this from?
>
> Do you know what exactly was hit on 10 October? Where was the Syrian
> "War Room"? You don't really believe it was placed in the middle of
> Damascus, or?
>
>> Where they got into the airspace
>> over the city was where they had taken out the two SAM Batteries.
>
> The strike against the Syrian Army HQs involved no attacks against
> the SAM batteries: the only such strikes on the Golan front were
> flown on the morning of 7 October. Two F-4Es were shot down by SA-6s,
> two by ZSU-23-4s, and two by MiG-21s for one SA-6 site and two MiGs
> in exchange.
>
>> The
>> Soviets built the air defense to have overlapping kill zones. I.e.,
>> there are 5 batteries A B C D E . A overlaps the kill
>> zone of B,
> B
>> of A and C, C of B and D and D of C and E, E of D.
>>
>> Take out B and C and you have a larger gap in between the kill zones.
>
> Not even the Syrian air defences along Golan were organized according
> to this (indeed Soviet) doctrine. They were organized according to
> Arab experiences - with the help of Soviet weapons.
>
>> Mission to take out the threat is succesfull as the only important
>> targets that they protect (anything inside Damascus) is worth
>> risking anything to take out. The ones further south could be flown
>> around, the mobile units
> are
>> too hard to find and hit so left alone usually till they set up and
>> become
> a
>> target. But they can usually only fire one and then have to be
>> reloaded (about an hour long proceedure). Israel tended to ignore
>> them and go for strategic targets and only took on the SAMS in that
>> war when they were in the way of that.
>
> Wrong without an end. The Israelis first hit the wall with their
> forehead trying to target SAM-sites about which they didn't even know
> where these should have been. The result was the Operation Dogman 5
> ("Plan 5" or something similar), which ended with such a catastrophe
> for the unit better known in the public as the "201st Sqn" (50% loss
> in a single mission). Then they learned the lesson and started flying
> interdiction strikes around the Syrian SAM-belt, and CAS in the areas
> on the edges of the Egyptian SAM-belt. Nevertheless, their Skyhawks
> had to fly CAS over Golan and on Sinai, and their losses (not only to
> the SAMs, but foremost to MiGs and ZSU-23-4s) were staggering - until
> the Arabs spent most of their SAMs, so that the IDF/AF was free to
> maneuver.
>
>> Israel today makes a air-to-surface missile, once a radar
>> source is turned on, not even "painting" them it can be fired from
>> about
> 20
>> miles out and it will even if they shut down all power hit the mark
>> it is totally locked in and it flies at low to the ground altitudes
>> to boot. It makes the US HARM systems old fasioned in that they
>> need to have it paint
> an
>> aircraft to lock on. Missiles with HARM systems have been known to
>> take
> out
>> the battery after the plane is shot down already.
>
> And which missile should this be, please? Not the "Purple Fist" by
> accident?
>
> If yes, be informed that this is actually the US-produced AGM-78
> Standard ARM, taken out of service in US military already in the late
> 1980s...
>
> The "real news" to this topic is the Israeli-built Harpy ARM-UAV,
> capable of cruising at a very low speed for hours over the
> battlefield and then targeting only the radars specifically
> programmed into its seeker head, by a near vertical "kamikaze-style"
> dive on their antennas.
>
>> You are totally streching, the Soviets were thought to have flown not
> during
>> the Yom Kippur War but for Egypt in the six day war, that according
>> to the Liberty croud here, that their mission was to listen for
>> proof of Soviet Envolvement.
>
> You're mixing almost everything. The Six Day War was fought in 1967,
> and this was the war during which the Israelis attacked USS Liberty.
> During this war there were only 35 Soviet instructors in Egypt, and
> these took no part in fighting against Israel at all.
>
> The number of Soviet "advisors" was constantly increasing since the
> end of the Six Day War and during the War of Attrition, fought
> (actually) 1967-1973 (officially between 1968 and 1970), reaching the
> pike in March 1970, when a whole Soviet air defence divison was
> deployed to Egypt. In 1972 Sadat expelled most of the Soviet
> instructors out of Egypt, so that by 1973 there were not many of them
> left there to fight at all. The 154th SAF (equipped with MiG-25Rs)
> was deployed to Cairo West in the final days of the war and flew only
> a handfull of sorties before the armistice.
>
> Thus, during the October/Teshreen War, fought in 1973, the Soviets
> flew no air battles against the Israelis: even East Germans, Poles,
> Noth Koreans, Pakistanis, all the possible Arabs - and one British -
> did, just no Soviets.
>
> BTW, the Soviets also flew combat sorties for Iraqis during the war
> with Iran (or is this another "big secret" in your opinion?): two
> were killed while flying MiG-27s, at least two more while flying
> MiG-25s - all in air combats with Iranian F-14s. One more was shot
> down while flying MiG-27 by Iranian Phantoms, but he survived.
>
> In exchange they shot down nothing.
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as well as photo
shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the press. The
building was the right building and after the war even Syria admitted it
happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Quant]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message >...
> Arie Kazachin wrote:
> > In message > - "Matt A.00 01 is
> > Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
> >>
> >> Arie Kazachin wrote:
> >
> > [self snip. I know what I wrote]
> >
> >>
> >> The IDF intelegence deny that happened as the CIA asked them not to
> >> disclose it. The world was afraid that Nixon had gone off the deep
> >> end and would use SAC Bombers already airborn 24 hours a day and
> >> fire the misiles in the Silos at the Russians as he warned them he
> >> would if they did what you say. There is no declasified information
> >> on Russian Pilots flying missions for the Arab side to this day.
> >> There are of course the rhumors that it happened but no IAF pilot,
> >> no Arab Pilot, and no Soviet Pilot has come forward about such to
> >> this day. Stop inventing stories and reporting unprovable things.
> >> Bottom
> >
> > [snip. Lost patience to correct what's below after the line above. ]
> >
> > Despite your baseless claims, it had LONG SINCE beed declassified and
> > appeared in books and papers. The book "The sky is not the limit" had
> > been printed in 1990 and it includes this battle description, so the
> > declassification came before 1990. Out of the 5 downed MiG-21s 3 were
> > downed by Mirage-IIICJ and two by F-4E. The pilots of Mirages were:
> > Asher Snir, "Avik", Yiftah Spector and the pilots of F-4Es were:
> > Aviem Sela and Avihu Ben-Nun. Find the pilots and ask them :-)
> > or do some "googling". You'll also probably get it at
> > "http://www.iaf.org.il/" somewhere under "history". Unfortunately I
> > can't access it at home - the site designers so heavily "optimized
> > for MS IE" that my Netscape can't show it correctly.
> >
> >
> >
> ************************************************** **************************
> **
> > * Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail:
> > *
> >
> ************************************************** **************************
> **
> > NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name.
> > Sorry, SPAM trap. ___ .__/ |
> > | O /
> > _/ /
> > | | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
> > | |
> > | | |
> > | | /O\
> > | _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
> > | * / \ o ++ O ++ o
> > | | |
> > | |<
> > \ \_)
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \_|
>
> Where did it say the downed Mig Pilots were Soviets.


I found it for you.

This is what was written in the old IAF site:


http://www.iaf.org.il/iaf/doa_iis.dll/Serve/item/English/1.3.3.6.3.3.html

One of the best known dogfights of the Israeli-Egyptian War of
Attrition was the encounter with MiG-21's flown by Soviet pilots. On
the afternoon hours of June 30th 1970, Israeli Phantoms attacked an
Egyptian radar installation at Suhuna, near the Gulf of Suez, with
other Phantoms and Mirages providing air cover. Soon enough, 6
quartets of Egyptian MiG-21's, flown by Soviet pilots, were scrambled
against the Israelis. In a matter of seconds, the scene was that of a
massive air brawl, which resulted in 5 MiG's being shot down - 3 by
Mirages and 2 by Phantoms

-

Last week the IAF launched a new site and at least for now there isn't
an English section in it.

Here you can find confirmation for the downed soveit pilots story (in
Hebrew):

< http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Aircraft/Aircraft.IN.aspx?lang=HE&lobbyID=69&folderID=78&docfolderID=184&docID=18175&currentPageNumber=2

< http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Aircraft/Aircraft.IN.aspx?lang=HE&lobbyID=69&folderID=78&docfolderID=184&docID=18173&currentPageNumber=2



> That was the issue
> that you posed and not what planes were involved. Is that why you simply
> snipped out your previous words and said you knew what you posted. Should I
> put back those quotes I retain the posts I download for the highest number
> of days one can enter in that option on OE, I think that is 9,999 days. My
> sent copies of all posts is automaticaly kept and I could find it there as
> well till I decide it is too old to bother keeping usually about 2 years for
> most posts and 3 for business emails sent out from here. I Also if I deem
> it important enough flag the sent message and my cleanup is done by a 2
> rules in OE.
>
> Rule Sent CLean 1: In SENT folder if Message is flagged Stop executing
> message rules.
>
> Rule Sent CLean 2: In SENT folder if message older than 742 days Delete
> Message stop executing rules.
>
> Real easy to keep long enough and self clean every time I run OE. So I
> unlike you do know what I responded to and you seem to forgotten.
>
> As to 1990 My MS is is Comp Sci, but I hold an associates in Visual arts (NY
> School of Vissual Arts) and a BA in History. Every professor would have
> called 1990 still recently. The book was written and published (I do have a
> copy of it) in 1990, the source is documented and if you check the
> documentation out, the second step of researching a topic. That is one
> reads it in a footnoted or endnoted source and then goes to the source that
> the author used. You would find it was infact declasified only the prior
> year 1989. A source is in Historical Terms considered new or recent till it
> has had 20 years of reviewing for any mistakes by other historians. Now
> that would take that off the "recently" list in 2009 not before as I was
> taught.
>
> There are books out on the Battle of Britain written 10 years after the war
> using documents that were declasified rigfht after the War. Later many
> mistakes as to pertant facts still came out that proved the conculusions of
> those Historians wrong. I.E. the exact fighter capacity of the RAF at the
> time of the Munich Conference. The first set of documents indicated 20
> times the number of fighters then were really there and usefull. That
> document came out just after the end of the war. 15 years later a military
> historian after talking with mechanics at various air fields at that time,
> found a flaw in how the numbers were generated. The document counted old WW
> I Biplanes and unarmed trainers as if they were viable fighters. Planes
> being scrapped at that time were also counted by the orders of the Air
> Marshal of the time. He believed their were Nazi Agents that had access to
> the documents and wanted them to think Britain was a lot better armed and
> ready than it was.
>
> That is why any good historian will 'think of anything available for less
> than 20 years as recent. Real good researching Historians usually leave
> anything of the last 20 years as "current events" as it is too knew to
> uncover the historical parts of it other then at the most trivial levels.' -
> Dr. Buchsbaumb U. Of Prague and Pace University after 1969.
>
>
> I used to have some of his books and attended 3 of his classes. He escaped
> from Hiltler and worked in British Intellegence during WWII and returned to
> his home in 1945 taught at Prague and during that famous spring of freedom
> published 2 books he had hidden from the Communists then as they fell to the
> Warsaw Pack was away on a lecture in London. He and his wife stayed out of
> that country and came to the USA. Apon my return and finishing Physical
> Rehab for the wounds in action in '67 I attended that school (Pace U) at
> their Pleasantville Campus (Westchester County NY) where he was teaching.
> He was one of my proffessors and my advisor. He gave "F" on papers that had
> too many sources under 20 years old. No topic that came into being during
> that 20 year window was ever accepted.
>
> I will abide by his definition of recent not yours, thank you.
>
>
> --�
> MattA
> ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
>
> Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
> to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
>
> Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
> http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Quant wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message >...
>> Arie Kazachin wrote:
>>> In message > - "Matt A.00 01 is
>>> Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
>>>>
>>>> Arie Kazachin wrote:
>>>
>>> [self snip. I know what I wrote]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IDF intelegence deny that happened as the CIA asked them not to
>>>> disclose it. The world was afraid that Nixon had gone off the deep
>>>> end and would use SAC Bombers already airborn 24 hours a day and
>>>> fire the misiles in the Silos at the Russians as he warned them he
>>>> would if they did what you say. There is no declasified
>>>> information on Russian Pilots flying missions for the Arab side to
>>>> this day. There are of course the rhumors that it happened but no
>>>> IAF pilot, no Arab Pilot, and no Soviet Pilot has come forward
>>>> about such to this day. Stop inventing stories and reporting
>>>> unprovable things. Bottom
>>>
>>> [snip. Lost patience to correct what's below after the line above. ]
>>>
>>> Despite your baseless claims, it had LONG SINCE beed declassified
>>> and appeared in books and papers. The book "The sky is not the
>>> limit" had been printed in 1990 and it includes this battle
>>> description, so the declassification came before 1990. Out of the 5
>>> downed MiG-21s 3 were downed by Mirage-IIICJ and two by F-4E. The
>>> pilots of Mirages were: Asher Snir, "Avik", Yiftah Spector and the
>>> pilots of F-4Es were: Aviem Sela and Avihu Ben-Nun. Find the pilots
>>> and ask them :-) or do some "googling". You'll also probably get
>>> it at "http://www.iaf.org.il/" somewhere under "history".
>>> Unfortunately I can't access it at home - the site designers so
>>> heavily "optimized for MS IE" that my Netscape can't show it
>>> correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
************************************************** **************************
>> **
>>> * Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail:
>>> *
>>>
>>
************************************************** **************************
>> **
>>> NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my
>>> domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap. ___ .__/ |
>>> | O /
>>> _/ /
>>> | | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
>>> | |
>>> | | |
>>> | | /O\
>>> | _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
>>> | * / \ o ++ O ++ o
>>> | | |
>>> | |<
>>> \ \_)
>>> \ |
>>> \ |
>>> \ |
>>> \ |
>>> \ |
>>> \ |
>>> \ |
>>> \_|
>>
>> Where did it say the downed Mig Pilots were Soviets.
>
>
> I found it for you.
>
> This is what was written in the old IAF site:
>
>
> http://www.iaf.org.il/iaf/doa_iis.dll/Serve/item/English/1.3.3.6.3.3.html
>
> One of the best known dogfights of the Israeli-Egyptian War of
> Attrition was the encounter with MiG-21's flown by Soviet pilots. On
> the afternoon hours of June 30th 1970, Israeli Phantoms attacked an
> Egyptian radar installation at Suhuna, near the Gulf of Suez, with
> other Phantoms and Mirages providing air cover. Soon enough, 6
> quartets of Egyptian MiG-21's, flown by Soviet pilots, were scrambled
> against the Israelis. In a matter of seconds, the scene was that of a
> massive air brawl, which resulted in 5 MiG's being shot down - 3 by
> Mirages and 2 by Phantoms
>
> -
>
> Last week the IAF launched a new site and at least for now there isn't
> an English section in it.
>
> Here you can find confirmation for the downed soveit pilots story (in
> Hebrew):
>
> <
>
http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Aircraft/Aircraft.IN.aspx?lang=HE&lobbyID=69
&folderID=78&docfolderID=184&docID=18175&currentPageNumber=2
>
> <
>
http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Aircraft/Aircraft.IN.aspx?lang=HE&lobbyID=69
&folderID=78&docfolderID=184&docID=18173&currentPageNumber=2
>
>
>
>> That was the issue
>> that you posed and not what planes were involved. Is that why you
>> simply snipped out your previous words and said you knew what you
>> posted. Should I put back those quotes I retain the posts I download
>> for the highest number of days one can enter in that option on OE, I
>> think that is 9,999 days. My sent copies of all posts is
>> automaticaly kept and I could find it there as well till I decide it
>> is too old to bother keeping usually about 2 years for most posts
>> and 3 for business emails sent out from here. I Also if I deem it
>> important enough flag the sent message and my cleanup is done by a 2
>> rules in OE.
>>
>> Rule Sent CLean 1: In SENT folder if Message is flagged Stop
>> executing message rules.
>>
>> Rule Sent CLean 2: In SENT folder if message older than 742 days
>> Delete Message stop executing rules.
>>
>> Real easy to keep long enough and self clean every time I run OE.
>> So I unlike you do know what I responded to and you seem to
>> forgotten.
>>
>> As to 1990 My MS is is Comp Sci, but I hold an associates in Visual
>> arts (NY School of Vissual Arts) and a BA in History. Every
>> professor would have called 1990 still recently. The book was
>> written and published (I do have a copy of it) in 1990, the source
>> is documented and if you check the documentation out, the second
>> step of researching a topic. That is one reads it in a footnoted or
>> endnoted source and then goes to the source that the author used.
>> You would find it was infact declasified only the prior year 1989.
>> A source is in Historical Terms considered new or recent till it has
>> had 20 years of reviewing for any mistakes by other historians. Now
>> that would take that off the "recently" list in 2009 not before as I
>> was taught.
>>
>> There are books out on the Battle of Britain written 10 years after
>> the war using documents that were declasified rigfht after the War.
>> Later many mistakes as to pertant facts still came out that proved
>> the conculusions of those Historians wrong. I.E. the exact fighter
>> capacity of the RAF at the time of the Munich Conference. The first
>> set of documents indicated 20 times the number of fighters then were
>> really there and usefull. That document came out just after the
>> end of the war. 15 years later a military historian after talking
>> with mechanics at various air fields at that time, found a flaw in
>> how the numbers were generated. The document counted old WW I
>> Biplanes and unarmed trainers as if they were viable fighters.
>> Planes being scrapped at that time were also counted by the orders
>> of the Air Marshal of the time. He believed their were Nazi Agents
>> that had access to the documents and wanted them to think Britain
>> was a lot better armed and ready than it was.
>>
>> That is why any good historian will 'think of anything available for
>> less than 20 years as recent. Real good researching Historians
>> usually leave anything of the last 20 years as "current events" as
>> it is too knew to uncover the historical parts of it other then at
>> the most trivial levels.' - Dr. Buchsbaumb U. Of Prague and Pace
>> University after 1969.
>>
>>
>> I used to have some of his books and attended 3 of his classes. He
>> escaped from Hiltler and worked in British Intellegence during WWII
>> and returned to his home in 1945 taught at Prague and during that
>> famous spring of freedom published 2 books he had hidden from the
>> Communists then as they fell to the Warsaw Pack was away on a
>> lecture in London. He and his wife stayed out of that country and
>> came to the USA. Apon my return and finishing Physical Rehab for
>> the wounds in action in '67 I attended that school (Pace U) at their
>> Pleasantville Campus (Westchester County NY) where he was teaching.
>> He was one of my proffessors and my advisor. He gave "F" on papers
>> that had too many sources under 20 years old. No topic that came
>> into being during that 20 year window was ever accepted.
>>
>> I will abide by his definition of recent not yours, thank you.
>>
>>
>> --�
>> MattA
>> ?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
>>
>> Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down
>> ads to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
>>
>> Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
>> http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

So then by your own statement the IAF was supperior to the Soviets?

I may say I stand corrected on one thing though, I assumed that the
discussion was about the war time '67 and the War on Yom Kippur. If these
IAF pilots shot down Soviet Piloted Migs they were better pilots as the
Israelis fight most of their air to air battles with cannon fire not air to
air heat seeking rockets. That requires geting in close and out flying the
enemy planes and the pilots. Israel due to this found ways to reload the
Gpods of their planes much faster than any other nation had. The US sent
their ground crew instructors to study how Iseal in Yom Kippur war put US
planes refuled and reloaded back in the air in 15 minutes when the US ground
crews needed an hour. Israel during the wars often found themeselves with
more Combat ready pilots than planes. Actually it was always that way as
the planes meant buying planes and a lot of spare parts. Not every pilot
could fly 24 * 7 any way for the entire war. So while they refitted the
planes with more fuel, refilled Gpods, and other weapons used up, they often
changed pilots allowing the pilot that already flew 1 to 5 missions to get
some rest and a fresh rested pilot took his place. At the start of the '67
war it was fairly well known that for every 5 planes they had 7 pilots.
Because they always had fewer planes then the Arabs they had to have better
pilots.

Now you indicate they outclassed the Soviets who would have sent their best
in not their worst.

LOL to the argument that the IDF was not the best.


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:09:21 GMT, (Richard Cranium)
wrote:

>When the reply posting is far more interesting than the original post,
>top posting is not only acceptable, it is preferable. That's why some
>newsreaders automatically place the response at the top of the thread.
>
>Oh yeah . . . I almost forgot . . . please **** off!
>
>
Your language in unacceptable and juvenile.

PLONK

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:30:29 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
>>Richard Cranium wrote:
>>> Well if a Schnerd says it, I'm sure that Mr. McCarthy agrees.
>>> Therefore, I disagree and will top post this response in opposition.
>>>
>>> BTW - did you really bang Candace??
>>
>>
>>Of course. I left her smoking.
>
>A cigarette one assumes?

Lord, I hope so.

Al Minyard

[Tom Cooper]

> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...

<snip>

> >
>
> This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as well as
photo
> shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the press. The
> building was the right building and after the war even Syria admitted it
> happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.

Aha. Interesting.

So, what you say in essence is this:
- the air battle provoked by the IDF/AF on 30 July 1970 never happened,

- the Soviets never participated in this battle,

- what happened during this battle was never revealed to the public,

- the Syrians were soooooooooooooooooooooooo endlessly dumb that they put
their "War Room" in the middle of the building with the HQs of their Army
during the War in 1973, so that the IDF/AF could find and hit the place.


.....and all of this because you don't know that the details about the air
battle on 30 July were revealed, and because you think that the Soviets did
not took part in the air battle against the Israelis, as well as because you
don't have a slightest clue about where the Syrian "War Room" was, and,
finally, because the US president was threatening to attack the USSR with
nuclear bombs if this would happen?

Do you understand how silly this is?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > message ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> >
> > This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as well as
> photo
> > shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the press. The
> > building was the right building and after the war even Syria admitted it
> > happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.
>
> Aha. Interesting.
>
> So, what you say in essence is this:
> - the air battle provoked by the IDF/AF on 30 July 1970 never happened,
>
> - the Soviets never participated in this battle,
>
> - what happened during this battle was never revealed to the public,
>
> - the Syrians were soooooooooooooooooooooooo endlessly dumb that they put
> their "War Room" in the middle of the building with the HQs of their Army
> during the War in 1973, so that the IDF/AF could find and hit the place.
>
>
> ....and all of this because you don't know that the details about the air
> battle on 30 July were revealed, and because you think that the Soviets did
> not took part in the air battle against the Israelis, as well as because you
> don't have a slightest clue about where the Syrian "War Room" was, and,
> finally, because the US president was threatening to attack the USSR with
> nuclear bombs if this would happen?
>
> Do you understand how silly this is?

Obviously he does not. Just as he does not apparently realize how
laughable his claim that Israel is developing not one but apparently
two new fighter aircraft is, nor his strange assertion that Israel has
developed some kind of new MANPADS. Apparently a confirmed citizen of
Loonland...

Brooks

>
> Tom Cooper

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>> message ...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>
>> This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as well
>> as
> photo
>> shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the
>> press. The building was the right building and after the war even
>> Syria admitted it happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.
>
> Aha. Interesting.
>
> So, what you say in essence is this:
> - the air battle provoked by the IDF/AF on 30 July 1970 never
> happened,
>
> - the Soviets never participated in this battle,
>
> - what happened during this battle was never revealed to the public,
>
> - the Syrians were soooooooooooooooooooooooo endlessly dumb that they
> put their "War Room" in the middle of the building with the HQs of
> their Army during the War in 1973, so that the IDF/AF could find and
> hit the place.
>
>
> ....and all of this because you don't know that the details about the
> air battle on 30 July were revealed, and because you think that the
> Soviets did not took part in the air battle against the Israelis, as
> well as because you don't have a slightest clue about where the
> Syrian "War Room" was, and, finally, because the US president was
> threatening to attack the USSR with nuclear bombs if this would
> happen?
>
> Do you understand how silly this is?
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Dumb to not hide it, how hidden is the Pentagon asshole. You cannot hide
the place that the head military meet for planning and discussing the way a
battle is going. Wars are not fought like they were in pre-civil war days.
They have a need to co-ordinate many branches of the Miltitary to work
together and get the job done.
In Siagon the building used for the General West Morlands briefings and
planning of the operations was marked on many maps and the NVA had the
location, just did not have the means to take it out that way.

The Ministry of Defense houses the Upper Staff of the Ground, Naval, and Air
Forces. It does not have the offices of the Mossad as they fall under a
different ministry (We call ours Departments to be clear on that).
It was in fact during the 6 Day war attacked by Jordanian planes who missed
their targets and the men were in their verson of the Situation Room which
is rhumored to be about 50 feet of Reinforced Concreate below the basement
with a tunnel running to the PM's Offices. Again this is on the military
maps and the Jordanians knew where it was. Israel by the second day of the
'67 war put a fighter cap up 24 * 7 landing planes after another flight took
off and was in position. During the Yom Kippur War they would have a lot
more warning as Syria would have to fly half the lenght of Isreal to reach
it trough heavily protected air space.

Egyptian Version was 2 blocks East of the Presidential Quaters. The
building was known to the IAF as well and in fact preceeding the Six Day War
Mossad had agents working there and that is how they knew about the build
ups that were at first done out of sight of the aircraft that would fly high
altitude reconicense just inside the Borders of Israel. At 10,000 feet one
can and cameras record a lot further than any ground station.

So the location of such buildings is hardly a keepable secret and no nation
thinks that the enemy would be able or dare to try to reach it. Syria never
planned to loose its air supremacy or loose 2 overlapping SAM Sites in that
war to open what they considered an untouchable city.

You will also perhapse remember the vidios of the smart bomb hitting the
Iraqi version of that buidling in the First Gulf Wars Air campaign. The US
kept that film showing on the news to show how great and precice the weapons
being used were. In that case it went down the elevator shaft and blew out
the floor they wanted to destroy totally.




--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[robert arndt]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > message ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> >
> > This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as well as
> photo
> > shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the press. The
> > building was the right building and after the war even Syria admitted it
> > happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.
>
> Aha. Interesting.
>
> Not really Tom since you excel in the art of BS. Don't you have some pro-Iranian/anti- Israeli rally to attend someplace? Or do you send your money to Saudi Arabian charities in the hope they will reach Hamas?
Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now, given it is a terror
sponsoring state and lying about its underground nuclear program...
but I guess you are happy that both the US and Israeli are restrained
for the moment- the Israelis caught up in 36 months of Intifada, us
bogged down in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I only live for the day one of the two or both strike Iran and shoot
their aircraft out of the skies. Better yet, let Iran fire a salvo of
IRBMs at Israel and watch as Tehran disappears in a mushroom cloud.

Rob

[phil hunt]

On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
>
>Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now,
>[...]
>I only live for the day [when I can] watch as Tehran disappears in
>a mushroom cloud.

When are you growing the toothbrush mustache, Bob?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Tom Cooper]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
>...
> > > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > > message ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as well as
> > photo
> > > shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the press.
The
> > > building was the right building and after the war even Syria admitted
it
> > > happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.
> >
> > Aha. Interesting.
> >
> > Not really Tom since you excel in the art of BS. Don't you have some
pro-Iranian/anti- Israeli rally to attend someplace? Or do you send your
money to Saudi Arabian charities in the hope they will reach Hamas?
> Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now, given it is a terror
> sponsoring state and lying about its underground nuclear program...
> but I guess you are happy that both the US and Israeli are restrained
> for the moment- the Israelis caught up in 36 months of Intifada, us
> bogged down in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
> I only live for the day one of the two or both strike Iran and shoot
> their aircraft out of the skies. Better yet, let Iran fire a salvo of
> IRBMs at Israel and watch as Tehran disappears in a mushroom cloud.

Yes. Stupids are everywhere.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as well
>>> as
>> photo
>>> shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the
>>> press. The building was the right building and after the war even
>>> Syria admitted it happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.
>>
>> Aha. Interesting.
>>
>> So, what you say in essence is this:
>> - the air battle provoked by the IDF/AF on 30 July 1970 never
>> happened,
>>
>> - the Soviets never participated in this battle,
>>
>> - what happened during this battle was never revealed to the public,
>>
>> - the Syrians were soooooooooooooooooooooooo endlessly dumb that
>> they put their "War Room" in the middle of the building with the HQs
>> of their Army during the War in 1973, so that the IDF/AF could find
>> and hit the place.
>>
>>
>> ....and all of this because you don't know that the details about
>> the air battle on 30 July were revealed, and because you think that
>> the Soviets did not took part in the air battle against the
>> Israelis, as well as because you don't have a slightest clue about
>> where the Syrian "War Room" was, and, finally, because the US
>> president was threatening to attack the USSR with nuclear bombs if
>> this would happen?
>>
>> Do you understand how silly this is?
>
> Obviously he does not. Just as he does not apparently realize how
> laughable his claim that Israel is developing not one but apparently
> two new fighter aircraft is, nor his strange assertion that Israel has
> developed some kind of new MANPADS. Apparently a confirmed citizen of
> Loonland...
>
> Brooks
>
>>
>> Tom Cooper

Time will show that you are the fool. Did you think that the Industry of
Israel would stop with their current fighters that they have been buiding
for years. LOL on that sweat pea (the baby in the old Poppie Comics and
Cartoons - LOL).

They actually are way behind schedule. Remember a speech by BiBi where he
said a main issue he would start to address was the Israeli Defence
Ministry's Dependence on the US Purse Strings. Now how could he do that and
continue to have to buy 3/4 or more of his planes from the US?
Understanding it now. He also led the battle to get the Arrow-I project
started and keep it funded and befor that was ever deployed got the Arrow II
project started. Sharon has almost finished the full deployment plan for
those and he announcded 1 month into his adminstration the *continueing*
aircraft, avionics systems, and the start of the Arrow III development
project. The Arrow I is relatively short range compared to the proposed
Arrow III. The Arrow II will most likely hit an Missle from Lybia passed
appogee while the specifications that are already released (the parts of the
specs not all of them) is to be able to take such out at appogee. Israel
has put via the NASA launch programs a Geo-Stationary satalite that is
believed by many to be only part for communications (the announced purpose)
but also capable of detection of any M.E. Launched Missiles giving more
warning. The proposal is to have a 2 tear ABM capability, faster launching,
faster and longer range Arrow IIIs to be used first and then the Arrow II if
a malfunction is detected that would be the *only* cause of a missed target.

In one laugh you did get something almost right. One, the fighter where
they already have some exepirance already is being scale model wind tunnel
tested for stability testing before the build a first prototype to actually
flight test. The longer range with the larger delivery capacity is still on
the Drawing Boards which means it may be a few years before it gets to even
this point of development. It is also true that the development and testing
will take a lot longer than the US woud take. One must remember that in the
attempt to break the Sound Barrier many prototype planes were lost and in
some cases the US lost the pilots as well, Also the prototypes were useless
designs for any real combat plane. Israel cannot afford that expense when
they test a plane it will be a prototype, yes, but the final plane will be
modelled from that prototype that was the best one. Till then the idea is
that other than mounting the actual weapons systems while the test pilots
test the design, it will only be the final tests of the actual plane that
will test weapons delivery and the installed aviaonics. But the Euro
fighter has been in design now since the US started it's stealth system
design. That was many years ago and still no working plane has emerged. I
would not hold your breath for that so called super plane from the French.
LOL.




--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
>>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as
>>>> well as
>>> photo
>>>> shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the
>>>> press.
> The
>>>> building was the right building and after the war even Syria
>>>> admitted
> it
>>>> happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.
>>>
>>> Aha. Interesting.
>>>
>>> Not really Tom since you excel in the art of BS. Don't you have some
> pro-Iranian/anti- Israeli rally to attend someplace? Or do you send
> your money to Saudi Arabian charities in the hope they will reach
> Hamas?
>> Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now, given it is a terror
>> sponsoring state and lying about its underground nuclear program...
>> but I guess you are happy that both the US and Israeli are restrained
>> for the moment- the Israelis caught up in 36 months of Intifada, us
>> bogged down in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
>> I only live for the day one of the two or both strike Iran and shoot
>> their aircraft out of the skies. Better yet, let Iran fire a salvo of
>> IRBMs at Israel and watch as Tehran disappears in a mushroom cloud.
>
> Yes. Stupids are everywhere.
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and ICBMS, and
S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read anything till here about
"IRBMS".

ABM = Anti Balistic missile with the purpose to destroy an inbound missle
before it hits the target.
ICBM = Inter-Contental Balistic Missile - the mainstay of the Cold War for
years. They have enough range to hit any target inside any distant nation.
They do mostly by reaching a high altitude appagee and flying over the North
pole for the old USSR, and Over the Pacific for China, while over the
Atlantic for Europe and Africa.
South America (the farther reaches would be reached by direct path flights
over the Equater from our more Southern Silos.

MRBM - Medium Range Balistic Missiles are incapable of flying the distances
between the Old Soviet Block, US or US and China. The Soviets in the early
1960s placed this type in Cuba and from there put our south and Eastern
States in range with a less than 20 minute warning at most. Since they are
fired from closer the time from a launch to detonation is much shorter.
That is their main value.

SRBM are short range missiles, to that point they fall under Tactical or
actual Battlefield Weapons. Very low in range but hits the target in under
5 minutes. No time given the enemy to react. However the drawback is that
your own troops may be exposed to the Blast, heat and radiation from the
detonation as well. The US at one time proposed to use these if West
Germany was invaded to destroy the invading army. Like the City of Way we
would destroy half of the area to save the area. Play on a General's words
as the US had almost destroyed the city to force out the last of the VC in
the Tet Offensive.

What is a "IRBM". Jane's Does not list it at all so what is it some ray gun
or what? ROFLH at the person that warned about them.


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...

> Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and ICBMS, and
> S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read anything till here about
> "IRBMS".

IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.

It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere between 1.500
and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not "tactical" or
"short range".

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>> Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and ICBMS,
>> and S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read anything till
>> here about "IRBMS".
>
> IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.
>
> It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere between
> 1.500 and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not
> "tactical" or "short range".
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Then why does Jane's Catalog of weapons held by all nations by nation and by
catagory not mention them?

--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > -
(robert arndt)17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700 writes:
>

[snip]

>their aircraft out of the skies. Better yet, let Iran fire a salvo of
>IRBMs at Israel and watch as Tehran disappears in a mushroom cloud.
>
>Rob

As someone who still thanks Menachem Begin (R.I.P.) for causing Iraqi Scud
falling 800m from my house not being nuclear, I prefare your scenario not to
materialize... :-)


************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[Kevin Brooks]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> >>> message ...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> This was acknowleged the day it happened by US Intellegence as well
> >>> as
> photo
> >>> shots that appeared in the NY Times released by the IAF to the
> >>> press. The building was the right building and after the war even
> >>> Syria admitted it happend. It is you that are full of Bull ****.
> >>
> >> Aha. Interesting.
> >>
> >> So, what you say in essence is this:
> >> - the air battle provoked by the IDF/AF on 30 July 1970 never
> >> happened,
> >>
> >> - the Soviets never participated in this battle,
> >>
> >> - what happened during this battle was never revealed to the public,
> >>
> >> - the Syrians were soooooooooooooooooooooooo endlessly dumb that
> >> they put their "War Room" in the middle of the building with the HQs
> >> of their Army during the War in 1973, so that the IDF/AF could find
> >> and hit the place.
> >>
> >>
> >> ....and all of this because you don't know that the details about
> >> the air battle on 30 July were revealed, and because you think that
> >> the Soviets did not took part in the air battle against the
> >> Israelis, as well as because you don't have a slightest clue about
> >> where the Syrian "War Room" was, and, finally, because the US
> >> president was threatening to attack the USSR with nuclear bombs if
> >> this would happen?
> >>
> >> Do you understand how silly this is?
> >
> > Obviously he does not. Just as he does not apparently realize how
> > laughable his claim that Israel is developing not one but apparently
> > two new fighter aircraft is, nor his strange assertion that Israel has
> > developed some kind of new MANPADS. Apparently a confirmed citizen of
> > Loonland...
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >>
> >> Tom Cooper
>
> Time will show that you are the fool. Did you think that the Industry of
> Israel would stop with their current fighters that they have been buiding
> for years. LOL on that sweat pea (the baby in the old Poppie Comics and
> Cartoons - LOL).

Uhmmm...where's the beef? Surely you have some kind of real evidence
of these plans to produce new fighters in Israel? Must be a big
secret, as nobody else seems to have caught on...

You might want to examine a career in science fiction, as you
apparently have the requisite imagination...

Brooks

<snip rambling, insubstantial rant>

[Peter Kemp]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:04:20 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
> wrote:

>Tom Cooper wrote:
>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>>> Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and ICBMS,
>>> and S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read anything till
>>> here about "IRBMS".
>>
>> IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.
>>
>> It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere between
>> 1.500 and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not
>> "tactical" or "short range".
>>
>Then why does Jane's Catalog of weapons held by all nations by nation and by
>catagory not mention them?

Because you're not using it properly. Get your copy of Janes Strategic
Weapons Systems off the shelf and start reading, there's quite a lot
of data on IRBMs in there, plus the contents of all the strategic
weapons treaties from SALT 1 onwards.

Peter Kemp

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
> Tom Cooper wrote:
>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>>> Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and ICBMS,
>>> and S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read anything till
>>> here about "IRBMS".
>>
>> IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.
>>
>> It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere between
>> 1.500 and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not
>> "tactical" or "short range".

> Then why does Jane's Catalog of weapons held by all nations by nation and by
> catagory not mention them?

Because Jane's is but a pale shadow of its former august self. As a
useful reference it has gone very far downhill in the last 10 years or
so. I suspect that one of heir problems has been that they split
themselves much to thin in that timeframe, producing over-specialized
volumes that basically parrot the manucafturer's press releases with
very littel cogent analysis.
(Now, really - Is "Jane's All the World's Air Freight Cargo Containers
really worth $150.00 US per volume? Should I be saving my hard-earned
for "All the World's Armoured Fighting Vehicle Track End Connectors?"

I gave up & went with Brassey's instead. Much more information, and
much less pretence.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[robert arndt]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
> >
> >Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now,
> >[...]
> >I only live for the day [when I can] watch as Tehran disappears in
> >a mushroom cloud.
>
> When are you growing the toothbrush mustache, Bob?


Let me get this straight Phil, buddy. You compare me to Hitler because
I believe Tehran should be destroyed in the event of an attack against
the State of Israel with IRBMs (which for all we know in the future
might mount an Iranian-made or DPRK/FSU purchased nuclear warhead)...
yet, you say nothing of Iran's blatant terrorist funding against
Israel, it's intense historical hatred of the Jews (including support
for the Nazi holocaust of WW2), and the fact that it is actively
seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the SOLE purpose of being
directed against Israel.
Who's the fascist then? The US should have dealt with Tehran during
the hostage crisis, and I'm not referring to "Operation Eagle Claw"
either. Instead, we elected President Reagan and let Iraq fight a 8 yr
war with them. The US has tried repeatedly to win over the
pro-democracy elements in Iranian society but has failed. Iran is
developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying the Jewish
State. I don't blame Israel at all for it's tough stance and threats
to pre-emptive attack/sabotage their efforts. And if Tehran is someday
wiped off the earth as a consequence of their own
anti-semitism/arrogance then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over
it...

Rob

[Tom Cooper]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (phil hunt) wrote in message
>...
> > On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
> > >
> > >Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now,
> > >[...]
> > >I only live for the day [when I can] watch as Tehran disappears in
> > >a mushroom cloud.
> >
> > When are you growing the toothbrush mustache, Bob?
>
>
> Let me get this straight Phil, buddy. You compare me to Hitler

- errm, where has Phil done this?

> because
> I believe Tehran should be destroyed in the event of an attack against
> the State of Israel with IRBMs (which for all we know in the future
> might mount an Iranian-made or DPRK/FSU purchased nuclear warhead)...

Has Tehran threatened to attack Israel? Has anybody in Tehran threatened to
attack Dimona? To "burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else?

You're obviously mixing Israeli and Iraqi official statements with those
from Iran.

Let me help you: even the stupids in power in Tehran haven't issued any
similar statements. The "glorious" Israeli leaders have, however.

> yet, you say nothing of Iran's blatant terrorist funding against
> Israel,

You also always forget to say something about the British, US and
Israeli-state sponsored terrorism against Iran since over 80 years. So what?

> it's intense historical hatred of the Jews

BS: the Jews are still living in Israel. Even this clerical regime haven't
"destroyed" them as your statement would indicate. How comes this?

How could it be Israel almost went to a war against Syria, Jordan, and Iraq
in 1980, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Iran and in support of Tehran?

How could it be the two countries are actually (even if clandestinelly)
activelly cooperating on a number of fields ever since?

> (including support
> for the Nazi holocaust of WW2),

Aha, now the Persians should have also supported the holocaust in the Europe
too?

How? What have they done in support of the holocaust? Refused to collaborate
with the British or ruled by the British marionette, and then also let
British and Soviet troops be stationed in their country? Was that
"supporting the holocaust"?

> and the fact that it is actively
> seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the SOLE purpose of being
> directed against Israel.

Israel is actively developing and producing nuclear weapons already since
the mid 1960s with sole purpose of threatening its neighbours. Israel would
not admit this (nor Israel cares about all the international regulations it
broke or ignored), but explains this (indirectly) with the need for
self-defence.

Has Iran no right to self-defence only because it is ruled by a highly
unpopular (at home and abroad) regime?

It has the same rights like Israel. The difference is that the current
Israeli gov and such ignorants like you is not recognizing this: at earlier
times there was no problem regarding this fact between Jerusalem and Tehran.

> Who's the fascist then?

Let me see: a country ruled by the militants, breaking international
regulations, ignoring decisions by international organizations, producing
WMDs, massively ignoring human rights, purposedly targeting civilians, being
aggressive against its neighbours and holding their territory occupied right
since its invention... Who could this be according to your own logic?

> The US should have dealt with Tehran during
> the hostage crisis, and I'm not referring to "Operation Eagle Claw"
> either. Instead, we elected President Reagan and let Iraq fight a 8 yr
> war with them.

Two moments are important in this statement:
a) according to you it appears that 4.5 millions (or how many?) of Jews
living in Israel and several millions more living abroad should dictate over
200 millions of Arabs and 70 millions of Persians what to do and what not,
why, and where to do it?

b) you elected Reagan because he was negotiating with the Mullahs, so that
these have held US hostages and not released them until exactly 30 minutes
after he moved into the White House. With other words: your own president
has neglected the safety of your co-citizens, and has neglected his duty as
an influential politician to bring them back home, because this was in his
private interest. Not only this: he then has also supplied arms worth $3
billion to an enemy of the USA (despite an official embargo), paid back
several billions in Iranian money and assets (despite these officially being
frozen) as well as promised that he would never do anything against the new
regime in Tehran....

Well, you can now explain what a "good" and "tremendous" President Reagan
was - and (certainly to your complete surprise) I would even agree regarding
many things he did, including his Iran-related politics. But, you can't deny
that he actually made himself guilty of comitting a traitory, and otherwise
you're permanently showing how stupid and ignorant and supportive for
aggressive actions you are, and how easy to manipulate by your own
politicians and propaganda.

As such, you can't be considered as a serious discutant on topics like
these.

> The US has tried repeatedly to win over the
> pro-democracy elements in Iranian society but has failed.

Truth: the US has indeed repeatedly won over the pro-democracy elements in
Iran. It removed a democratically ellected president there (in 1952) and
supported and financed brutal and oppressive regimes (not only the Shah, but
also the Mullahs) and Iranian terrorists (MKE/MKO etc.) instead.

> Iran is
> developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying the Jewish
> State.

Can you offer us even one single document that would confirm this and deny
any other purpose for such weapons being eventually in development in Iran?

> I don't blame Israel at all for it's tough stance and threats
> to pre-emptive attack/sabotage their efforts. And if Tehran is someday
> wiped off the earth as a consequence of their own
> anti-semitism/arrogance then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over
> it...

So, it's only so that you simply hate Persians.

Where's the problem, Rob? Even the son of your Persian neighbour drives a
better car than you? Well, we all know their predilection for BMWs.... Has
he a better house than you? Hm, well, must depend on what he earns... Or has
he simply a better-looking wife than you?

BTW, you know what's interesting too? Just yesterday I chatted with several
Israeli Yom Kippour vets: the people I'm sure you consider a kind of
superhuman warriors, that win all, everything, and everywhere. They are
feed-up with wars, pain, blood, broken and missing limbs, suffering, terror
and destruction, and would prefer peace with Arabs and anybody else in the
ME to anything. Just such like you, which never put even their small toes
into danger - but can babble from their comfortable chairs with 5.000km of
ocean of safety between them and any direct threat - can support such
nonsensical ideas like the use of nuclear weapons anywhere at all.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...
> Quant wrote:
> > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > message >...
> >> Arie Kazachin wrote:
> >>> In message > - "Matt A.00 01 is
> >>> Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
<snip>
> I may say I stand corrected on one thing though, I assumed that the
> discussion was about the war time '67 and the War on Yom Kippur. If these
> IAF pilots shot down Soviet Piloted Migs they were better pilots as the
> Israelis fight most of their air to air battles with cannon fire not air
to
> air heat seeking rockets.

Actually, the situation in that engagement was so that the Israelis have
purposedly set-up a trap: they have sent Phantoms to hit that Egyptian radar
station and act as a demonstration group, knowing that any attack in _that_
area would cause the Soviets to react - not Egyptians. The purpose was to
deliver a message to the Soviets: don't play with us. When the Soviets
reacted as expected, additional groups of Israeli Mirages and Phantoms - all
flown by hand-picked pilots, every single one of which had far more fresh
combat experience than all the Soviets together - hit them from the side.

So, the Soviets fell to their own ignorance as much as they did to missiles
fired from their fighters: they considered themselves "better" than the
Israelis because of what they were at hom ("best" Soviet pilots), not
because of their true combat experience (which was 0). Also because they
would not listen to the "stupid Arabs", which were warning them that new air
combat methods and weapons were needed in order the counter the Israelis.
The Soviets believed they did not need anything better than MiG-21s and
their nifty weaponry. Israelis, on the other side, concentrated all of their
best pilots to deliver the message: these were excellently trained in
air-to-air gunnery, and also knew the MiG-21 and the weaknesses of its
weapons system so well, they could exploit this in combat to their
advantage.

The Israelis knew, for example, that the R-13 - (AA-2 "Atoll", the main
air-to-air missile used by the MiG-21) - was completely useless in air
combat, so they could maneuver and use afterburners without the fear of
being hit, while their own missiles were functioning. They were, however,
neither "super" nor the "best": they were only better than the Soviets and
the Egyptians at the time and place. Of course, that was what counted and
what was important at the time and place.

As a matter of fact several of "best" Israeli "aces" are known for poor
section discipline: they were fighting alone, leaving their wingmen alone
and without support (which caused quite some losses in air combats in 1973,
when the Arabs got better).

> That requires geting in close and out flying the
> enemy planes and the pilots. Israel due to this found ways to reload the
> Gpods of their planes much faster than any other nation had.

Hm, somehow I have a feeling you're missing here too. Guns were important
mainly during the Six Day War. Subsequently, an increasing number of kills
were scored by missiles.
If I recall it exactly all the Israeli kills against Soviets on 30 July 1970
were scored by missiles, just for example....

> The US sent
> their ground crew instructors to study how Iseal in Yom Kippur war put US
> planes refuled and reloaded back in the air in 15 minutes when the US
ground
> crews needed an hour.

The turn-around times were more important on the first day of the Six Day
War, in 1967, than in 1970 or 1973: on the first day of the Six Day War the
Israelis had to fly as much in order to keep the enemy under the constant
pressure. The situation changed already on the next day, when the threat
from Arab air forces was minimized. On specific days during the October War,
1973, the IDF/AF flew not more than 150-200 sorties, while having something
like 400 combat aircraft at the time. Means, obviously less than 50% of the
force was flying at all. So, I doubt there was a need for the US to send
anybody to Israel in 1973 to see these Israeli super-turbo turn-around
times...

In fact, in 1973 the Israelis had nothing like turn-around times of 15
minutes: this was neither really needed, nor advisible, and in the cases
where it was attempted the results were heavy losses. The first reason was
that the pilots could not be properly briefed for such operations as fought
in 1973: as after such fast turn-around times the pilots were sent to hit
targets they did not know where to find they got shot down while looking
around... On the first day of the Six Day War, the situation was simplier,
as they had to strike mainly Arab airfields.

Also, in 1973 the IDF/AF was flying Phantoms: a single Phantom can carry as
many bombs as four or more Mirages - and deliver them with far better
precision, over a longer range, at a higher speed. A "salvo" of 12 Mk.82s
dropped from a single F-4E in 1973 could shut down an Arab airfield for
several hours: in 1973 one needed at least four Mirages, or SMB.2s, or
Vautors to do the same job. Consequently they did not need fly as many
sorties as in 1967.

< Israel during the wars often found themeselves with
> more Combat ready pilots than planes. Actually it was always that way as
> the planes meant buying planes and a lot of spare parts.

According to this logic of yours: buying spare parts = bad.

Hehe, I doubt anybody working in any air force could agree with this....

> Not every pilot
> could fly 24 * 7 any way for the entire war.

As a matter of fact, nobody can do this. Not "even" the Israelis: please,
permit them to remain human beings. Four sorties a day - and for a single
day - yes, but that's already the limit. Three a day for duration of three,
four, perhaps five days. That can function too. But more would only decrease
the capability of the pilot: it would simply drain him down.

> So while they refitted the
> planes with more fuel, refilled Gpods, and other weapons used up, they
often
> changed pilots allowing the pilot that already flew 1 to 5 missions to get
> some rest and a fresh rested pilot took his place.

Could you name a single Israeli pilot that flew five sorties in one day,
either in 1967 or 1973? I couldn't. Feel free to correct me, but I can only
remember several that flew four sorties on the first day of the Six Day War,
not a single one that flew as much in 1973.

> Now you indicate they outclassed the Soviets who would have sent their
best
> in not their worst.

This is nothing special: the fact that the Soviets considered their "best"
pilots "best" means not these were indeed the "best" around. They've got
shot down in air combats fought on a number of other places too... You can
bet your annual income that the same can be said for the Israelis too: some
of their "best" were shot down several times. So also the "best" Arab pilot
ever, Syrian Bassam Hamshu, who shot down nine Israelis in air combats
between 1970 and 1973 - and then got himself shot down and killed in 1982:
there is always somebody who's _better_.....

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Quant]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (phil hunt) wrote in message
> >...
> > > On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now,
> > > >[...]
> > > >I only live for the day [when I can] watch as Tehran disappears in
> > > >a mushroom cloud.
> > >
> > > When are you growing the toothbrush mustache, Bob?
> >
> >
> > Let me get this straight Phil, buddy. You compare me to Hitler
>
> - errm, where has Phil done this?
>
> > because
> > I believe Tehran should be destroyed in the event of an attack against
> > the State of Israel with IRBMs (which for all we know in the future
> > might mount an Iranian-made or DPRK/FSU purchased nuclear warhead)...
>
> Has Tehran threatened to attack Israel? Has anybody in Tehran threatened to
> attack Dimona? To "burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else?
>


Not just someone, but rafsanjani himself who still have power in Iran,
has said not long ago that Iran should nuke Israel:

< http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm


And if it's not enough that the clergi their is anxious to nuke Israel
then their "reformist" president, khatami was also throwing poison at
Israel when Iran introduced the Shihab 3.

From:
http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/03.Aug.1998/News/Article-1.html

--
On Saturday, Iranian President Mohammed Khatami said his country was
determined to continue to strengthen its armed forces, regardless of
international concerns.

"A strong Iran is a backing for the security of friends, neighbors and
all the regional countries," Khatami said during a Defense Ministry
exhibition in Teheran.

He condemned "the Zionist regime, which is equipped with atomic,
biological and chemical weapons," as "the principal threat to the
nations of the region."

Jay Bushinsky adds:

Responding to Khatami's remarks, the Foreign Ministry said yesterday
it does not perceive Iran as an enemy and does not threaten the
Iranian regime.
--


Did you notice the difference between Iran's and Israel's approach?


I'm also posting an article from Iranscope:

http://www.iranvajahan.net/english/2003/04/16/index.shtml


Thursday, September 04, 2003

IRI Intimidating Israel

September 04, 2003
Iranscope
Sam Ghandchi



Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) since its inception has been
intimidating Israel, beginning with Khomeini's announcement of the
Ghods Day in Tehran after the establishment of IRI, supposedly to
defend the Palestinian people, but in reality to export Shi'a Islamism
all over the Middle East. In the recent years, IRI boasting of having
long range missiles reaching Israel, is doing the same kind of
rhetoric Saddam initiated against Israel, that ended up in Israel's
preemptive strikes on Iraq's nuclear facilities.

The IRI anti-Israeli intimidations is also reminiscent of rhetoric of
IRI leaders against Iraq which ended up in Iraq's invasion of Iran
with 8 years of suffering and devastation with no positive outcome for
Iran. Of course Saddam's Iraq invaded Iran and it was rightly
condemned and Iranians had every right and duty to resist the invaders
and push them out of Iran.

Why is IRI doing all the rhetoric of Shahab Missiles to get Iran into
a war situation with Israel? Haven't we learned that these
intimidations can only hurt Iran and Iranians by isolating Iran more
and more and putting Iran at the risk of an Israeli attack?

What is all the point of anti-Israeli nonsense? In the last 20 years,
Iran has suffered in the hands of Islamists and not Zionists. Why do
the Islamists and leftists always try to make Israeli-Palestinian
conflict our issue? IRI tries to start a war with Israel to keep
itself afloat, the same way Saddam and many Arab states including most
of the Palestinian leadership have done all these years, to keep the
tension with Israel to justify their own incompetence to form
democratic and modern states in their own countries.

Can anybody name one state in the Middle East to be more modern and
democratic for its *own* citizens than Israel? Oh please do not jump
and say Palestinians are treated as second degree citizens in Israel.
I know that and I condemn it. But blacks were treated as second degree
citizens in law of the land not only till 1864 but even till the Civil
Rights Movement in the U.S., but the United State was still a
democracy for the rest of the population for hundreds of years despite
the ugly part of apartheid during that history.

Let's remember that in contrast, the Arab countries do not just treat
their "second" degree citizens below democratic and human rights
standards, they treat all their citizens as such, and also they are
all backward states which even allow the killing of heretics, or
practice beheading and other cruel punishments like in Saudi Arabia,
and stoning and other crimes against Iran's own citizens in the case
of IRI even sanctioned in its constitution, whereas all these
countries having oil are a lot richer than Israel and could have
modernized and democratized a lot if they had the right leadership.

Israel has been one of the most successful countries in the Middle
East, which has been able to become way more modern and democratic
than all the other countries in the Middle East even without having
oil revenues. The superiority of the state apparatus of Israel in the
independence of its parliament and checks and balances, having real
elections and not sham elections, and the social welfare and
independent media and other human rights, are undeniable and their
advanced state in technologies and health care are known even to
Iranian people who wish medical attendance in Israeli hospitals for
their loved ones, and if anybody says it is all because of dependence
on the U.S., I would respond that Saudi has also been dependent on the
U.S. but is a symbol of backwardness in the world and not advancement.

I have written before that "I do not approve the attacks of Israeli
state against the Palestinians and if some Israel's officials still
imagine they have legitimacy of owning a piece of land in the Middle
East based on whatever has been the case some thousands of years ago
are wrong and the same way the Palestinians and Arabs who also imagine
that because of whatever has been owned by Arabs over half a century
ago to have the right to that land, are also dreaming. This is as if
one keeps saying white population has no right to the U.S. land,
because it belonged to Native Americans. The reality is that there is
a country of Israel because of whatever historical reasons, just like
all those Arab countries that exist because of some historical reasons
and one better see the reality and plan on that rather than having a
self-serving version of dream of history to try to solve today's
problems."

Thus basically I do not care for either side of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and I have already written in details my
views of the historical issues raised, and do not need to repeat here
and frankly I see it waste of time to argue these historical
discussions and I prefer to focus on practical reality of the Middle
East than to get drowned in history.

Iranians want good relations with Israel and it is to our advantage to
learn about technical and social advancements of Israel and looking at
Israel from the angle of Israel-Palestinian conflict has been a wrong
approach to Israel for over 20 years. The majority of leftists who
have been helping IRI all these years in continuing their lopsided
view of Israel are doing a disservice to Iran and Iranians and if
their so-called anti-imperialism ended up supporting an Islamist
reactionary revolution in 1979, their condoning and supporting
anti-Israeli rhetoric of IRI will put Iran at a situation worse than
the Iran-Iraq War.

Iranians do not want a war with Israel and if IRI leaders cause a war
with Israel, they are the ones who are causing another disaster for
Iran and Iranians, which can hurt us like the Iran-Iraq War, and
Islamists and leftists should answer for all the devastations that
will follow such an outcome. They better come to grips with the new
realities of the Middle East rather than putting Iran and Iranians at
risk



> You're obviously mixing Israeli and Iraqi official statements with those
> from Iran.
>
> Let me help you: even the stupids in power in Tehran haven't issued any
> similar statements. The "glorious" Israeli leaders have, however.
>
> > yet, you say nothing of Iran's blatant terrorist funding against
> > Israel,
>
> You also always forget to say something about the British, US and
> Israeli-state sponsored terrorism against Iran since over 80 years. So what?
>
> > it's intense historical hatred of the Jews
>
> BS: the Jews are still living in Israel. Even this clerical regime haven't
> "destroyed" them as your statement would indicate. How comes this?
>
> How could it be Israel almost went to a war against Syria, Jordan, and Iraq
> in 1980, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Iran and in support of Tehran?
>
> How could it be the two countries are actually (even if clandestinelly)
> activelly cooperating on a number of fields ever since?
>
> > (including support
> > for the Nazi holocaust of WW2),
>
> Aha, now the Persians should have also supported the holocaust in the Europe
> too?
>
> How? What have they done in support of the holocaust? Refused to collaborate
> with the British or ruled by the British marionette, and then also let
> British and Soviet troops be stationed in their country? Was that
> "supporting the holocaust"?
>
> > and the fact that it is actively
> > seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the SOLE purpose of being
> > directed against Israel.
>
> Israel is actively developing and producing nuclear weapons already since
> the mid 1960s with sole purpose of threatening its neighbours. Israel would
> not admit this (nor Israel cares about all the international regulations it
> broke or ignored), but explains this (indirectly) with the need for
> self-defence.
>
> Has Iran no right to self-defence only because it is ruled by a highly
> unpopular (at home and abroad) regime?
>
> It has the same rights like Israel. The difference is that the current
> Israeli gov and such ignorants like you is not recognizing this: at earlier
> times there was no problem regarding this fact between Jerusalem and Tehran.
>
> > Who's the fascist then?
>
> Let me see: a country ruled by the militants, breaking international
> regulations, ignoring decisions by international organizations, producing
> WMDs, massively ignoring human rights, purposedly targeting civilians, being
> aggressive against its neighbours and holding their territory occupied right
> since its invention... Who could this be according to your own logic?
>
> > The US should have dealt with Tehran during
> > the hostage crisis, and I'm not referring to "Operation Eagle Claw"
> > either. Instead, we elected President Reagan and let Iraq fight a 8 yr
> > war with them.
>
> Two moments are important in this statement:
> a) according to you it appears that 4.5 millions (or how many?) of Jews
> living in Israel and several millions more living abroad should dictate over
> 200 millions of Arabs and 70 millions of Persians what to do and what not,
> why, and where to do it?
>
> b) you elected Reagan because he was negotiating with the Mullahs, so that
> these have held US hostages and not released them until exactly 30 minutes
> after he moved into the White House. With other words: your own president
> has neglected the safety of your co-citizens, and has neglected his duty as
> an influential politician to bring them back home, because this was in his
> private interest. Not only this: he then has also supplied arms worth $3
> billion to an enemy of the USA (despite an official embargo), paid back
> several billions in Iranian money and assets (despite these officially being
> frozen) as well as promised that he would never do anything against the new
> regime in Tehran....
>
> Well, you can now explain what a "good" and "tremendous" President Reagan
> was - and (certainly to your complete surprise) I would even agree regarding
> many things he did, including his Iran-related politics. But, you can't deny
> that he actually made himself guilty of comitting a traitory, and otherwise
> you're permanently showing how stupid and ignorant and supportive for
> aggressive actions you are, and how easy to manipulate by your own
> politicians and propaganda.
>
> As such, you can't be considered as a serious discutant on topics like
> these.
>
> > The US has tried repeatedly to win over the
> > pro-democracy elements in Iranian society but has failed.
>
> Truth: the US has indeed repeatedly won over the pro-democracy elements in
> Iran. It removed a democratically ellected president there (in 1952) and
> supported and financed brutal and oppressive regimes (not only the Shah, but
> also the Mullahs) and Iranian terrorists (MKE/MKO etc.) instead.
>
> > Iran is
> > developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying the Jewish
> > State.
>
> Can you offer us even one single document that would confirm this and deny
> any other purpose for such weapons being eventually in development in Iran?
>
> > I don't blame Israel at all for it's tough stance and threats
> > to pre-emptive attack/sabotage their efforts. And if Tehran is someday
> > wiped off the earth as a consequence of their own
> > anti-semitism/arrogance then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over
> > it...
>
> So, it's only so that you simply hate Persians.
>
> Where's the problem, Rob? Even the son of your Persian neighbour drives a
> better car than you? Well, we all know their predilection for BMWs.... Has
> he a better house than you? Hm, well, must depend on what he earns... Or has
> he simply a better-looking wife than you?
>
> BTW, you know what's interesting too? Just yesterday I chatted with several
> Israeli Yom Kippour vets: the people I'm sure you consider a kind of
> superhuman warriors, that win all, everything, and everywhere. They are
> feed-up with wars, pain, blood, broken and missing limbs, suffering, terror
> and destruction, and would prefer peace with Arabs and anybody else in the
> ME to anything. Just such like you, which never put even their small toes
> into danger - but can babble from their comfortable chairs with 5.000km of
> ocean of safety between them and any direct threat - can support such
> nonsensical ideas like the use of nuclear weapons anywhere at all.
>
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[John Penta]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:03:05 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>I gave up & went with Brassey's instead. Much more information, and
>much less pretence.

Yes, but what's the price for Brassey's like in the US?

[phil hunt]

On 17 Sep 2003 21:07:15 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>> On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
>> >
>> >Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now,
>> >[...]
>> >I only live for the day [when I can] watch as Tehran disappears in
>> >a mushroom cloud.
>>
>> When are you growing the toothbrush mustache, Bob?
>
>
>Let me get this straight Phil, buddy. You compare me to Hitler because
>I believe Tehran should be destroyed in the event of an attack against
>the State of Israel with IRBMs

You believe it should be destroyed "by now". Now, perhaps I am
ignorant of current developments in the middle east, but to my
knowledge Iran hasn't launched IRBMs at Israel, so you believe it
deosn't be destoryed irrespective of this. The fact is, you are
someone who gloats at the imagined death of millions of people. The
only difference between you and Hitler is that he was powerful
enough to make his fantasies reality.

>(which for all we know in the future
>might mount an Iranian-made or DPRK/FSU purchased nuclear warhead)...

Indeed.

>yet, you say nothing of Iran's blatant terrorist funding against
>Israel,

Just like you say nothing of Israel's blatant oppression of millions
of Palestinians?

> it's intense historical hatred of the Jews (including support
>for the Nazi holocaust of WW2), and the fact that it is actively
>seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the SOLE purpose of being
>directed against Israel.

AFAICT, the main purpose is to deter American aggression. It's
highly unlikely a nuclear-armed Iran would use nuclear weapons
against Israel, for the same reason that no nuclear weapon state
has ever used nuclear weapons against another nuclear weapon state.
One thing the leaders of all countries have in common is they don't
want to become radioactive cinders.

>Who's the fascist then?

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at -- you seem to be saying
that if the Iranian govmt are fascists, you can't be. Is that what
you are saying? If not, what are you saying?

It's quite obvious that there is no shortage of people with nasty beliefs
and attitudes on either side of the disputer between Israel and the Arab/
Muslim world; but it's equally obvious that this has no bearing on whether
you, personally, are a fascist.

>The US should have dealt with Tehran during
>the hostage crisis, and I'm not referring to "Operation Eagle Claw"
>either.

What are you refering to, then?

>Instead, we elected President Reagan and let Iraq fight a 8 yr
>war with them. The US has tried repeatedly to win over the
>pro-democracy elements in Iranian society

By deposing Mossadeq?

>but has failed. Iran is
>developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying the Jewish
>State.

I disagree, for reasons I've explained earlier.

>I don't blame Israel at all for it's tough stance and threats
>to pre-emptive attack/sabotage their efforts.

As I understand it, you are saying that the Israeli _Herrenvolk_ are
superior to the Arab and Muslim _Untermensch_, so have a natural right
to kill them, and displace them off their land to create _Lebensraum_.
That's what you seem to beleive -- tell me if I'm wrong, but your belief system is indistinguishable from Hitler's, if you just change a few
labels.

>And if Tehran is someday
>wiped off the earth as a consequence of their own
>anti-semitism/arrogance then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over
>it...

If I could be bothered to re-read _Mein Kampf_ I'm sure I could come
up with similar phrases.

Face it, you're a fascist.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:01:08 GMT, Tom Cooper > wrote:
>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>> (phil hunt) wrote in message
>...
>> > On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now,
>> > >[...]
>> > >I only live for the day [when I can] watch as Tehran disappears in
>> > >a mushroom cloud.
>> >
>> > When are you growing the toothbrush mustache, Bob?
>>
>>
>> Let me get this straight Phil, buddy. You compare me to Hitler
>
>- errm, where has Phil done this?

When I talked about him growing a toothbrush mustache.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Tom Cooper]

"Quant" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (phil hunt) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt >
wrote:

> > Has Tehran threatened to attack Israel? Has anybody in Tehran threatened
to
> > attack Dimona? To "burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else?
> >
>
>
> Not just someone, but rafsanjani himself who still have power in Iran,
> has said not long ago that Iran should nuke Israel:
>
> <
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

Ah, of course. I understand now everything. This statement is worth as much
as when one of the radical Jewish parties in Israel declares something of
the kind....

Clearly, that's a part of the political and religious life in the Middle
East: I guess it might be not a bad idea to let all such characters solve
the matter between themselves.

> And if it's not enough that the clergi their is anxious to nuke Israel
> then their "reformist" president, khatami was also throwing poison at
> Israel when Iran introduced the Shihab 3.

He stated that Israel is a threat for security in the Middle East. And, that
is truth. Nothing else.

Strong Iran is a guarantee for the peace in the Persian Gulf area, as - and
this is something everybody interested should know - as soon as Iran is not
strong there is a war, as somebody attacks it.

> Did you notice the difference between Iran's and Israel's approach?

No. I haven't. Sharon also threatened already several times that Israel will
destroy Bushehr. There were also threats with other stuff.

As said: that's how specific countries communicate on official lines since
decades. Sorry, I don't see the difference.


>
> I'm also posting an article from Iranscope:

Who is Sam Ghandchi so that you consider him that authoritative?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Quant wrote:
>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>> message >...
>>>> Arie Kazachin wrote:
>>>>> In message > - "Matt A.00 01 is
>>>>> Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
> <snip>
>> I may say I stand corrected on one thing though, I assumed that the
>> discussion was about the war time '67 and the War on Yom Kippur. If
>> these IAF pilots shot down Soviet Piloted Migs they were better
>> pilots as the Israelis fight most of their air to air battles with
>> cannon fire not air
> to
>> air heat seeking rockets.
>
> Actually, the situation in that engagement was so that the Israelis
> have purposedly set-up a trap: they have sent Phantoms to hit that
> Egyptian radar station and act as a demonstration group, knowing that
> any attack in _that_ area would cause the Soviets to react - not
> Egyptians. The purpose was to deliver a message to the Soviets: don't
> play with us. When the Soviets reacted as expected, additional groups
> of Israeli Mirages and Phantoms - all flown by hand-picked pilots,
> every single one of which had far more fresh combat experience than
> all the Soviets together - hit them from the side.
>
> So, the Soviets fell to their own ignorance as much as they did to
> missiles fired from their fighters: they considered themselves
> "better" than the Israelis because of what they were at hom ("best"
> Soviet pilots), not because of their true combat experience (which
> was 0). Also because they would not listen to the "stupid Arabs",
> which were warning them that new air combat methods and weapons were
> needed in order the counter the Israelis. The Soviets believed they
> did not need anything better than MiG-21s and their nifty weaponry.
> Israelis, on the other side, concentrated all of their best pilots to
> deliver the message: these were excellently trained in air-to-air
> gunnery, and also knew the MiG-21 and the weaknesses of its weapons
> system so well, they could exploit this in combat to their advantage.
>
> The Israelis knew, for example, that the R-13 - (AA-2 "Atoll", the
> main air-to-air missile used by the MiG-21) - was completely useless
> in air combat, so they could maneuver and use afterburners without
> the fear of being hit, while their own missiles were functioning.
> They were, however, neither "super" nor the "best": they were only
> better than the Soviets and the Egyptians at the time and place. Of
> course, that was what counted and what was important at the time and
> place.
>
> As a matter of fact several of "best" Israeli "aces" are known for
> poor section discipline: they were fighting alone, leaving their
> wingmen alone and without support (which caused quite some losses in
> air combats in 1973, when the Arabs got better).
>
>> That requires geting in close and out flying the
>> enemy planes and the pilots. Israel due to this found ways to
>> reload the Gpods of their planes much faster than any other nation
>> had.
>
> Hm, somehow I have a feeling you're missing here too. Guns were
> important mainly during the Six Day War. Subsequently, an increasing
> number of kills were scored by missiles.
> If I recall it exactly all the Israeli kills against Soviets on 30
> July 1970 were scored by missiles, just for example....
>
>> The US sent
>> their ground crew instructors to study how Iseal in Yom Kippur war
>> put US planes refuled and reloaded back in the air in 15 minutes
>> when the US
> ground
>> crews needed an hour.
>
> The turn-around times were more important on the first day of the Six
> Day War, in 1967, than in 1970 or 1973: on the first day of the Six
> Day War the Israelis had to fly as much in order to keep the enemy
> under the constant pressure. The situation changed already on the
> next day, when the threat from Arab air forces was minimized. On
> specific days during the October War, 1973, the IDF/AF flew not more
> than 150-200 sorties, while having something like 400 combat aircraft
> at the time. Means, obviously less than 50% of the force was flying
> at all. So, I doubt there was a need for the US to send anybody to
> Israel in 1973 to see these Israeli super-turbo turn-around times...
>
> In fact, in 1973 the Israelis had nothing like turn-around times of 15
> minutes: this was neither really needed, nor advisible, and in the
> cases where it was attempted the results were heavy losses. The first
> reason was that the pilots could not be properly briefed for such
> operations as fought in 1973: as after such fast turn-around times
> the pilots were sent to hit targets they did not know where to find
> they got shot down while looking around... On the first day of the
> Six Day War, the situation was simplier, as they had to strike mainly
> Arab airfields.
>
> Also, in 1973 the IDF/AF was flying Phantoms: a single Phantom can
> carry as many bombs as four or more Mirages - and deliver them with
> far better precision, over a longer range, at a higher speed. A
> "salvo" of 12 Mk.82s dropped from a single F-4E in 1973 could shut
> down an Arab airfield for several hours: in 1973 one needed at least
> four Mirages, or SMB.2s, or Vautors to do the same job. Consequently
> they did not need fly as many sorties as in 1967.
>
> < Israel during the wars often found themeselves with
>> more Combat ready pilots than planes. Actually it was always that
>> way as the planes meant buying planes and a lot of spare parts.
>
> According to this logic of yours: buying spare parts = bad.

No not bad just added expense that the Israeli budget even with the US aid
could not afford. Also having more piltots then planes allowed for more
long time missions when the same pilot would not be taking that plane out
again that day but another pilot would who was rested and well briefed on
the next mission well prior to the plane landing and being refitted for that
mission. In the Six day war after the first day against Egypt, many of the
sorties were flown against the Syrian and Israeli Air Forces to stop the
danger of the air raids that the Jordanians did pull off in the early hours
of the war. Shooting down most of their best pilots supressed them to
defense only. The Syrians lost too many planes also in one day engagement.
By the third day no arab air force threatened Israel or its forces. They
were a nullified threat. In the six day war also a Russian Frieter and 2
ships of their line were attacked in Port Alexandria. They had no air cover
to speak of and were heavily enough damaged to flee the waters entirely to
Lybian Waters and harbor to perform some repairs and set off again to sea
ASAP. After those first three days the majority of IAF activities was close
ground support missions to take out bunkers, Tanks, other Armored Viechles
as well as troops. This is how the Egyptian and Syrian Ground forces kept
finding any defendable position unatenable. Israel did continue to use the
fast refiting time during that time. They were handed known fixed locations
to hit, and then any target of opurtunity as well as those strikes that the
ground troops called in.

In close ground support flying the pilot must be well rested. When he takes
off he only knows what sector on he is to patrol. He has no designated
targets to be briefed on. His targets are communicated to him from the
ground forces that need an airstrike at a set of co-ordinates. If there is
time he does a flyover at susonic speed and Id's his target(s) and then on
the next pass unloads it. Sometimes he is asked for specific ordinence and
a direction of the attack. That is common when they are against a line of
heavy firing from hidden troops. They ask for Nalpalm from one direction
from a start point. That causes a large line of incinerating fire that
cannot be put out till it all burns off. The pilot only knows that he and
the number of planes that will be in that sector. Nothing is known about
what targets he will hit, when or where in that sector. If on his return to
the field he still has ordinence and can find a target of oportunity he will
use what is left to take that out.

Briefing time is not needed for those missions, just pilots that are rested
and planes loaded with the ordinence and fuel. How long does it take for a
tired pilot to get out of his plane and his rested replacement get in. Not
two hours, not one hour, but perhaps about 15 minutes of them climbing and
talking about the plane's handling. So a 15 minute turn around is a good
and better way to go. The other 50 planes were incase another nation joined
in the fray and they needed to scramble their planes in defense.

>
> Hehe, I doubt anybody working in any air force could agree with
> this....
>
>> Not every pilot
>> could fly 24 * 7 any way for the entire war.
>
> As a matter of fact, nobody can do this. Not "even" the Israelis:
> please, permit them to remain human beings. Four sorties a day - and
> for a single day - yes, but that's already the limit. Three a day for
> duration of three, four, perhaps five days. That can function too.
> But more would only decrease the capability of the pilot: it would
> simply drain him down.
>

But make the ratio of pilots to planes heavier on the number of pilots to
planes and the IAF could give the pilots a break after short periods and
less sorties. That is how the IAF opperated in both the Six Day and Yom
Kippur Wars as well as against the Palestinians in Lebanon. Any tired pilot
could be given a break when he landed and another pilot would be available
to relieve him for some time to rest.


>> So while they refitted the
>> planes with more fuel, refilled Gpods, and other weapons used up,
>> they
> often
>> changed pilots allowing the pilot that already flew 1 to 5 missions
>> to get some rest and a fresh rested pilot took his place.
>
> Could you name a single Israeli pilot that flew five sorties in one
> day, either in 1967 or 1973? I couldn't. Feel free to correct me, but
> I can only remember several that flew four sorties on the first day
> of the Six Day War, not a single one that flew as much in 1973.


Over the 1/4 of the first wave against Egypt flew 5 sortees the first day in
'67. Many of these raides went very quickly just take out the air fields
some key roadways and rail line. Also they were the ones that bombed some
Russian Ships in Port Alexandria sending them packing that day. That was
their fifth sortee. The story about this was on the History Channel as well
as in a book by one of the lead pilots, (I do not rememeber his name). The
Show on the History Channel was one of a series called "Air Power".


>> Now you indicate they outclassed the Soviets who would have sent
>> their
> best
>> in not their worst.
>
> This is nothing special: the fact that the Soviets considered their
> "best" pilots "best" means not these were indeed the "best" around.
> They've got shot down in air combats fought on a number of other
> places too... You can bet your annual income that the same can be
> said for the Israelis too: some of their "best" were shot down
> several times. So also the "best" Arab pilot ever, Syrian Bassam
> Hamshu, who shot down nine Israelis in air combats between 1970 and
> 1973 - and then got himself shot down and killed in 1982: there is
> always somebody who's _better_.....
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585



--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Peter Kemp wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:04:20 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
> > wrote:
>
>> Tom Cooper wrote:
>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>
>>>> Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and ICBMS,
>>>> and S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read anything till
>>>> here about "IRBMS".
>>>
>>> IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.
>>>
>>> It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere between
>>> 1.500 and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not
>>> "tactical" or "short range".
>>>
>> Then why does Jane's Catalog of weapons held by all nations by
>> nation and by catagory not mention them?
>
> Because you're not using it properly. Get your copy of Janes Strategic
> Weapons Systems off the shelf and start reading, there's quite a lot
> of data on IRBMs in there, plus the contents of all the strategic
> weapons treaties from SALT 1 onwards.
>
> Peter Kemp

Funny the latest copy I have the update for calls them Medium Range not
Intermediate, perhaps they are using both terms based on the person that
does that particular entry. It was also called Medium Range when they all
the sources about the Cuban Missile Crisis describe the class of Missiles
being set up by the Soviets there and when they talk of the old Jupiter
sites in Turkey of that time.


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Quant]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> "Quant" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > (phil hunt) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt >
> wrote:
>
> > > Has Tehran threatened to attack Israel? Has anybody in Tehran threatened
> to
> > > attack Dimona? To "burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Not just someone, but rafsanjani himself who still have power in Iran,
> > has said not long ago that Iran should nuke Israel:
> >
> > <
> http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
>
> Ah, of course. I understand now everything. This statement is worth as much
> as when one of the radical Jewish parties in Israel declares something of
> the kind....
>

I leave the interpretation for you (and for the other NG readers) in
this case.
You asked:
Has anybody in Tehran threatened to attack Dimona? To "burn down" the
whole Israel or whatever else?

So I showed you that the answer is yes.

Also:

1. Not even _one_ statement by _any_ party in Israel threatened to
destroy Iran in the last decade. I challenge you to stand behind your
words and to provide a link to prove them.
2. Rafsanjani is not just a non-important extremist party. He is the
former president of Iran and has a lot of power to this day.


> Clearly, that's a part of the political and religious life in the Middle
> East: I guess it might be not a bad idea to let all such characters solve
> the matter between themselves.
>


see above



> > And if it's not enough that the clergi their is anxious to nuke Israel
> > then their "reformist" president, khatami was also throwing poison at
> > Israel when Iran introduced the Shihab 3.
>
> He stated that Israel is a threat for security in the Middle East. And, that
> is truth. Nothing else.
>


He was doing it in the ceremony of the introduction of the Shihab 3,
and Israel was the only foreign country mentioned in that ceremony.
Anyone who knows something about international relations would tell
you that your analysis is wrong. This was a direct threat on Israel.

Also, see the interpretation of Khatami's reference to Israel in
Iranscope. I posted it bellow.


> Strong Iran is a guarantee for the peace in the Persian Gulf area, as - and
> this is something everybody interested should know - as soon as Iran is not
> strong there is a war, as somebody attacks it.
>


Could be.
But lets not forget that "Tehran threatened to attack Dimona, or to
"burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else".



> > Did you notice the difference between Iran's and Israel's approach?
>
> No. I haven't. Sharon also threatened already several times that Israel will
> destroy Bushehr. There were also threats with other stuff.
>

I don't remember Sharon publicly ever threatened to attack any nuclear
facility in Iran. Not even once.
If you could bring a prove to your claims it could be very helpful for
this debate.
I follow closely this subject and Israel declared that there is a
growing threat from Iran, but never talked about military action to
neutralize this threat.

I'm posting again the official Israeli Foreign Ministry announced.
This announcement was made after the ceremony of the introduction of
the Shihab 3.

"
the Foreign Ministry said yesterday
it does not perceive Iran as an enemy and does not threaten the
Iranian regime.
"



> Even when the F
> As said: that's how specific countries communicate on official lines since
> decades. Sorry, I don't see the difference.
>
>
> >
> > I'm also posting an article from Iranscope:
>
> Who is Sam Ghandchi so that you consider him that authoritative?
>

info about Sam Ghandchi:
http://www.ghandchi.com/05-My_Profile.htm

Sam Ghandchi is an Iranian futurist and a journalist. I find his
opinion as representing the mainstream opinions of the exiled Iranian
community.

please read the article I posted in my previous post.



> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Cooper wrote:
> > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Quant wrote:
> >>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> >>> message >...
> >>>> Arie Kazachin wrote:
> >>>>> In message > - "Matt A.00 01 is
> >>>>> Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
> > <snip>
> >
> > < Israel during the wars often found themeselves with
> >> more Combat ready pilots than planes. Actually it was always that
> >> way as the planes meant buying planes and a lot of spare parts.
> >
> > According to this logic of yours: buying spare parts = bad.
>
> No not bad just added expense that the Israeli budget even with the US aid
> could not afford.

I don't remember to have ever heard about any such problems. As a matter of
fact, the Israeli defence budget doubled between 1972 and 1974, and at the
time the USA - also in the sence of the Nixon's Doctrine - trippled the
worth of their aid projects for Israel. The problems with the Israeli
defence budgets which not even the US aid could support developed only in
1986-1987, at the time of terrible economic problems and a massive inflation
in Israel.

> Also having more piltots then planes allowed for more
> long time missions when the same pilot would not be taking that plane out
> again that day but another pilot would who was rested and well briefed on
> the next mission well prior to the plane landing and being refitted for
that
> mission.

But how many really "long-range" missions were flown in 1973? The most
distanced targets were Homs in Syria and el-Mansoura in Egypt. That's what -
250-300km, and that because of the over-the-sea leg, in order to avoid the
enemy SAM-belts.

Besides, this argument of yours is contradictive to your explanations about
pilots flying five and more sorties a day: why should they, if there were
enough pilots?

As said: the tempo of operations was nowhere as high as in 1973 as it was on
THE FIRST DAY (only) in 1967. I tried to explain why several times already,
and can't help if you ignored this.

> Shooting down most of their best pilots supressed them to
> defense only.

Err, actually the Egyptians reorganized and from the third day of the war
hit hard on Israeli troops moving along the roads on Sinai. In that sence,
the EAF lost most of its combat strenght, that's truth, but it never quit
fighting.

> The Syrians lost too many planes also in one day engagement.

The Syrians lost most of their planes on the ground. In air battles fought
over the Syrian airfields it was 6:2 for the Israelis, if I recall all the
details correctly. In total, however, the SyAAF was not as heavily damaged
as the EAF, and certainly not as heavily as the RJAF (which lost of all its
combat aircraft) - and none of the top Syrian pilot was killed (well, not in
1967: two or three were KIA in the War of Attrition; one in 1973, and at
least two in 1982).

> By the third day no arab air force threatened Israel or its forces.

You should ask the Israeli vets about this: there is even pictorial evidence
about "non-threatening" (Algerian-supplied) Egyptian MiG-17s bombing Israeli
column on Sinai, and several trucks going up in flame... Just because the
Israeli media is not talking about such attacks (over 100) it doesn't mean
they never happened.

> In the six day war also a Russian Frieter and 2
> ships of their line were attacked in Port Alexandria. They had no air
cover
> to speak of and were heavily enough damaged to flee the waters entirely to
> Lybian Waters and harbor to perform some repairs and set off again to sea
> ASAP.

Aha. What was the name of this freighter? This is the first time I heard
about any kind of air strikes against targets in the Alexandria area, in
June 1967. They are not mentioned in any of at least a dozen of books and
three dozens of articles I have to the topic of that air war....

> After those first three days the majority of IAF activities was close
> ground support missions to take out bunkers, Tanks, other Armored Viechles
> as well as troops. This is how the Egyptian and Syrian Ground forces kept
> finding any defendable position unatenable.

Not truth either. Egyptian Gen. Amer did a mistake (because of which he was
later relieved of command and commited suicide) by ordering the troops on
Sinai to pull back towards the Canal. In this way he draw his troops out of
their well-dug in positions into the open, where they were hit by the air.
This pull-back resulted in a rout, in which the Egyptians suffered over
30.000 KIA, MIA, and injured for almost nothing in return. If they remained
in their positions along the Israeli border and fought it is 100% sure they
would have not suffered similar losses.

The Syrians, on the contrary, just sat there and wait, and then - when the
Israelis were on the end with their strenght, they started pulling out of
Golan. They were not routed, however: quite on the contrary, they inflicted
heavy losses to the IDF. The 7th AB, for example, had only seven tanks
remaining at the time of the cease-fire.

> In close ground support flying the pilot must be well rested. When he
takes
> off he only knows what sector on he is to patrol. He has no designated
> targets to be briefed on. His targets are communicated to him from the
> ground forces that need an airstrike at a set of co-ordinates.

Yeah, this was tried on 7, 8, 9 and 10 October 1973, with the result that
the IDF/AF lost over 80 combat aircraft shot down and over 150 damaged...

> If there is
> time he does a flyover at susonic speed and Id's his target(s) and then on
> the next pass unloads it. Sometimes he is asked for specific ordinence
and
> a direction of the attack. That is common when they are against a line of
> heavy firing from hidden troops. They ask for Nalpalm from one direction
> from a start point. That causes a large line of incinerating fire that
> cannot be put out till it all burns off. The pilot only knows that he and
> the number of planes that will be in that sector. Nothing is known about
> what targets he will hit, when or where in that sector. If on his return
to
> the field he still has ordinence and can find a target of oportunity he
will
> use what is left to take that out.

Sorry, but I doubt I ever read anything as senseless as this.

> Briefing time is not needed for those missions, just pilots that are
rested
> and planes loaded with the ordinence and fuel.

Aha. Briefings are not needed now either? You don't really know what are you
talking about, or?

> >> Not every pilot
> >> could fly 24 * 7 any way for the entire war.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, nobody can do this. Not "even" the Israelis:
> > please, permit them to remain human beings. Four sorties a day - and
> > for a single day - yes, but that's already the limit. Three a day for
> > duration of three, four, perhaps five days. That can function too.
> > But more would only decrease the capability of the pilot: it would
> > simply drain him down.
> >
>
> But make the ratio of pilots to planes heavier on the number of pilots to
> planes and the IAF could give the pilots a break after short periods and
> less sorties. That is how the IAF opperated in both the Six Day and Yom
> Kippur Wars as well as against the Palestinians in Lebanon. Any tired
pilot
> could be given a break when he landed and another pilot would be available
> to relieve him for some time to rest.

In the war, Matt, there are no "tired" or "rested" pilots: there are pilots
that can fly and others that can't. Period.

You have several combat-experienced pilots on this NG: go and ask Ed Rasimus
if he would explain it any other way.

>> So while they refitted the
> >> planes with more fuel, refilled Gpods, and other weapons used up,
> >> they
> > often
> >> changed pilots allowing the pilot that already flew 1 to 5 missions
> >> to get some rest and a fresh rested pilot took his place.
> >
> > Could you name a single Israeli pilot that flew five sorties in one
> > day, either in 1967 or 1973? I couldn't. Feel free to correct me, but
> > I can only remember several that flew four sorties on the first day
> > of the Six Day War, not a single one that flew as much in 1973.
>
>
> Over the 1/4 of the first wave against Egypt flew 5 sortees the first day
in
> '67.

Look: I asked you for names. I can mention names of the one or two IDF/AF
pilots that flew four missions on that day. You say one quarter of them did
so. OK. Can you mention even one name of an IDF/AF pilot that flew five
sorties on that day?

> The story about this was on the History Channel as well
> as in a book by one of the lead pilots, (I do not rememeber his name).
The
> Show on the History Channel was one of a series called "Air Power".

Oh, now I understand everything. Thank's Lord, there is a "History Channel".
You never came to the idea that they could be wrong about this?

Have you ever heard about some stuff called "books" or something similar?
I've heard these are made of paper and ink, and one might be forced to go to
the so-called "book-shops" or "libraries" in order to get them, and then
even have to "read" (spelling?) these too....

But, they say one can learn quite some stuff from reading these strange
things.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Peter Kemp]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:39:16 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
> wrote:

>Peter Kemp wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:04:20 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Cooper wrote:
>>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and ICBMS,
>>>>> and S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read anything till
>>>>> here about "IRBMS".
>>>>
>>>> IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.
>>>>
>>>> It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere between
>>>> 1.500 and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not
>>>> "tactical" or "short range".
>>>>
>>> Then why does Jane's Catalog of weapons held by all nations by
>>> nation and by catagory not mention them?
>>
>> Because you're not using it properly. Get your copy of Janes Strategic
>> Weapons Systems off the shelf and start reading, there's quite a lot
>> of data on IRBMs in there, plus the contents of all the strategic
>> weapons treaties from SALT 1 onwards.
>>
>> Peter Kemp
>
>Funny the latest copy I have the update for calls them Medium Range not
>Intermediate, perhaps they are using both terms based on the person that
>does that particular entry. It was also called Medium Range when they all
>the sources about the Cuban Missile Crisis describe the class of Missiles
>being set up by the Soviets there and when they talk of the old Jupiter
>sites in Turkey of that time.

Well, my copy of JSWS is at work so it will have to wait until Monday.
However, after a 15 second search on the internet I found the
following definition...

SRBM- Short Range Ballistic Missiles (0 - 1,000 km)
MRBM- Medium Range Ballistic Missile (1,000 - 2,500 km)
IRBM- Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (2,500 - 3,500 km)
LRICBM- Limited Range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (3,500 -
8,000 km)
FRICBM- Full Range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (8,000 - 12,000
km)

at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/missile-overview.htm


And

Missile Ranges
SRBM
Short-range ballistic missile (<1,000 km)
MRBM
Medium-range ballistic missile (1,000-3,000 km)
IRBM
Intermediate-range ballistic missile (3,000-5,500 km)
ICBM
Intercontinental ballistic missile (5,500+ km)

at

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles.asp

So both sites agree that MRBM and IRBM are different, even if they
disagree on the definitions. Watch this space for the Janes
definitions.

Peter Kemp

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Please Tom, keep your humor in check, just when I relax to take a sip
of tea I get to the end of your posting, and read about
'books'.... please stop before it is fatal to someone!
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[robert arndt]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (phil hunt) wrote in message
> >...
> > > On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now,
> > > >[...]
> > > >I only live for the day [when I can] watch as Tehran disappears in
> > > >a mushroom cloud.
> > >
> > > When are you growing the toothbrush mustache, Bob?
> >
> >
> > Let me get this straight Phil, buddy. You compare me to Hitler
>
> - errm, where has Phil done this?
>
> > because
> > I believe Tehran should be destroyed in the event of an attack against
> > the State of Israel with IRBMs (which for all we know in the future
> > might mount an Iranian-made or DPRK/FSU purchased nuclear warhead)...
>
> Has Tehran threatened to attack Israel? Has anybody in Tehran threatened to
> attack Dimona? To "burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else?
>
> You're obviously mixing Israeli and Iraqi official statements with those
> from Iran.
>
> Let me help you: even the stupids in power in Tehran haven't issued any
> similar statements. The "glorious" Israeli leaders have, however.
>
> > yet, you say nothing of Iran's blatant terrorist funding against
> > Israel,
>
> You also always forget to say something about the British, US and
> Israeli-state sponsored terrorism against Iran since over 80 years. So what?
>
> > it's intense historical hatred of the Jews
>
> BS: the Jews are still living in Israel. Even this clerical regime haven't
> "destroyed" them as your statement would indicate. How comes this?
>
> How could it be Israel almost went to a war against Syria, Jordan, and Iraq
> in 1980, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Iran and in support of Tehran?
>
> How could it be the two countries are actually (even if clandestinelly)
> activelly cooperating on a number of fields ever since?
>
> > (including support
> > for the Nazi holocaust of WW2),
>
> Aha, now the Persians should have also supported the holocaust in the Europe
> too?
>
> How? What have they done in support of the holocaust? Refused to collaborate
> with the British or ruled by the British marionette, and then also let
> British and Soviet troops be stationed in their country? Was that
> "supporting the holocaust"?
>
> > and the fact that it is actively
> > seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the SOLE purpose of being
> > directed against Israel.
>
> Israel is actively developing and producing nuclear weapons already since
> the mid 1960s with sole purpose of threatening its neighbours. Israel would
> not admit this (nor Israel cares about all the international regulations it
> broke or ignored), but explains this (indirectly) with the need for
> self-defence.
>
> Has Iran no right to self-defence only because it is ruled by a highly
> unpopular (at home and abroad) regime?
>
> It has the same rights like Israel. The difference is that the current
> Israeli gov and such ignorants like you is not recognizing this: at earlier
> times there was no problem regarding this fact between Jerusalem and Tehran.
>
> > Who's the fascist then?
>
> Let me see: a country ruled by the militants, breaking international
> regulations, ignoring decisions by international organizations, producing
> WMDs, massively ignoring human rights, purposedly targeting civilians, being
> aggressive against its neighbours and holding their territory occupied right
> since its invention... Who could this be according to your own logic?
>
> > The US should have dealt with Tehran during
> > the hostage crisis, and I'm not referring to "Operation Eagle Claw"
> > either. Instead, we elected President Reagan and let Iraq fight a 8 yr
> > war with them.
>
> Two moments are important in this statement:
> a) according to you it appears that 4.5 millions (or how many?) of Jews
> living in Israel and several millions more living abroad should dictate over
> 200 millions of Arabs and 70 millions of Persians what to do and what not,
> why, and where to do it?
>
> b) you elected Reagan because he was negotiating with the Mullahs, so that
> these have held US hostages and not released them until exactly 30 minutes
> after he moved into the White House. With other words: your own president
> has neglected the safety of your co-citizens, and has neglected his duty as
> an influential politician to bring them back home, because this was in his
> private interest. Not only this: he then has also supplied arms worth $3
> billion to an enemy of the USA (despite an official embargo), paid back
> several billions in Iranian money and assets (despite these officially being
> frozen) as well as promised that he would never do anything against the new
> regime in Tehran....
>
> Well, you can now explain what a "good" and "tremendous" President Reagan
> was - and (certainly to your complete surprise) I would even agree regarding
> many things he did, including his Iran-related politics. But, you can't deny
> that he actually made himself guilty of comitting a traitory, and otherwise
> you're permanently showing how stupid and ignorant and supportive for
> aggressive actions you are, and how easy to manipulate by your own
> politicians and propaganda.
>
> As such, you can't be considered as a serious discutant on topics like
> these.
>
> > The US has tried repeatedly to win over the
> > pro-democracy elements in Iranian society but has failed.
>
> Truth: the US has indeed repeatedly won over the pro-democracy elements in
> Iran. It removed a democratically ellected president there (in 1952) and
> supported and financed brutal and oppressive regimes (not only the Shah, but
> also the Mullahs) and Iranian terrorists (MKE/MKO etc.) instead.
>
> > Iran is
> > developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying the Jewish
> > State.
>
> Can you offer us even one single document that would confirm this and deny
> any other purpose for such weapons being eventually in development in Iran?
>
> > I don't blame Israel at all for it's tough stance and threats
> > to pre-emptive attack/sabotage their efforts. And if Tehran is someday
> > wiped off the earth as a consequence of their own
> > anti-semitism/arrogance then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over
> > it...
>
> So, it's only so that you simply hate Persians.
>
> Where's the problem, Rob? Even the son of your Persian neighbour drives a
> better car than you? Well, we all know their predilection for BMWs.... Has
> he a better house than you? Hm, well, must depend on what he earns... Or has
> he simply a better-looking wife than you?
>
> BTW, you know what's interesting too? Just yesterday I chatted with several
> Israeli Yom Kippour vets: the people I'm sure you consider a kind of
> superhuman warriors, that win all, everything, and everywhere. They are
> feed-up with wars, pain, blood, broken and missing limbs, suffering, terror
> and destruction, and would prefer peace with Arabs and anybody else in the
> ME to anything. Just such like you, which never put even their small toes
> into danger - but can babble from their comfortable chairs with 5.000km of
> ocean of safety between them and any direct threat - can support such
> nonsensical ideas like the use of nuclear weapons anywhere at all.
>
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Nice speech Tom... running for the Iranian Pro-Democracy Freedom &
Human Rights Party?... oops, Iran doesn't allow political opposition
nor care for human rights. Iran is too busy these days with its covert
nuclear weapons program and terrorist funding... the ultimate goal of
which is to eliminate the Jewish state like all their neighbors (aka
Islamic cohorts).
BTW, I live in Northern California which is in range of nuclear
weapons from the FSU, Chinese missile subs, and future DPRK 3-stage
missiles... not to mention the threat every American faces with
nuclear terrorism, should Al Qaida get their grubby hands on a small
tactical device or ULY micronuke.
Tom, please stick to co-authoring pro-Iranian fiction and leave
reality based dialogue to others.

Rob

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Tom Cooper wrote:
>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> Quant wrote:
>>>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>>>> message >...
>>>>>> Arie Kazachin wrote:
>>>>>>> In message > - "Matt A.00 01
>>>>>>> is Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> < Israel during the wars often found themeselves with
>>>> more Combat ready pilots than planes. Actually it was always that
>>>> way as the planes meant buying planes and a lot of spare parts.
>>>
>>> According to this logic of yours: buying spare parts = bad.
>>
>> No not bad just added expense that the Israeli budget even with the
>> US aid could not afford.
>
> I don't remember to have ever heard about any such problems. As a
> matter of fact, the Israeli defence budget doubled between 1972 and
> 1974, and at the time the USA - also in the sence of the Nixon's
> Doctrine - trippled the worth of their aid projects for Israel. The
> problems with the Israeli defence budgets which not even the US aid
> could support developed only in 1986-1987, at the time of terrible
> economic problems and a massive inflation in Israel.
>
>> Also having more piltots then planes allowed for more
>> long time missions when the same pilot would not be taking that
>> plane out again that day but another pilot would who was rested and
>> well briefed on the next mission well prior to the plane landing and
>> being refitted for
> that
>> mission.
>
> But how many really "long-range" missions were flown in 1973? The most
> distanced targets were Homs in Syria and el-Mansoura in Egypt. That's
> what - 250-300km, and that because of the over-the-sea leg, in order
> to avoid the enemy SAM-belts.
>
> Besides, this argument of yours is contradictive to your explanations
> about pilots flying five and more sorties a day: why should they, if
> there were enough pilots?
>
> As said: the tempo of operations was nowhere as high as in 1973 as it
> was on THE FIRST DAY (only) in 1967. I tried to explain why several
> times already, and can't help if you ignored this.
>
>> Shooting down most of their best pilots supressed them to
>> defense only.
>
> Err, actually the Egyptians reorganized and from the third day of the
> war hit hard on Israeli troops moving along the roads on Sinai. In
> that sence, the EAF lost most of its combat strenght, that's truth,
> but it never quit fighting.
>
>> The Syrians lost too many planes also in one day engagement.
>
> The Syrians lost most of their planes on the ground. In air battles
> fought over the Syrian airfields it was 6:2 for the Israelis, if I
> recall all the details correctly. In total, however, the SyAAF was
> not as heavily damaged as the EAF, and certainly not as heavily as
> the RJAF (which lost of all its combat aircraft) - and none of the
> top Syrian pilot was killed (well, not in 1967: two or three were KIA
> in the War of Attrition; one in 1973, and at least two in 1982).
>
>> By the third day no arab air force threatened Israel or its forces.
>
> You should ask the Israeli vets about this: there is even pictorial
> evidence about "non-threatening" (Algerian-supplied) Egyptian MiG-17s
> bombing Israeli column on Sinai, and several trucks going up in
> flame... Just because the Israeli media is not talking about such
> attacks (over 100) it doesn't mean they never happened.
>
>> In the six day war also a Russian Frieter and 2
>> ships of their line were attacked in Port Alexandria. They had no
>> air
> cover
>> to speak of and were heavily enough damaged to flee the waters
>> entirely to Lybian Waters and harbor to perform some repairs and set
>> off again to sea ASAP.
>
> Aha. What was the name of this freighter? This is the first time I
> heard about any kind of air strikes against targets in the Alexandria
> area, in June 1967. They are not mentioned in any of at least a dozen
> of books and three dozens of articles I have to the topic of that air
> war....
>
>> After those first three days the majority of IAF activities was close
>> ground support missions to take out bunkers, Tanks, other Armored
>> Viechles as well as troops. This is how the Egyptian and Syrian
>> Ground forces kept finding any defendable position unatenable.
>
> Not truth either. Egyptian Gen. Amer did a mistake (because of which
> he was later relieved of command and commited suicide) by ordering
> the troops on Sinai to pull back towards the Canal. In this way he
> draw his troops out of their well-dug in positions into the open,
> where they were hit by the air. This pull-back resulted in a rout, in
> which the Egyptians suffered over
> 30.000 KIA, MIA, and injured for almost nothing in return. If they
> remained in their positions along the Israeli border and fought it is
> 100% sure they would have not suffered similar losses.
>
> The Syrians, on the contrary, just sat there and wait, and then -
> when the Israelis were on the end with their strenght, they started
> pulling out of Golan. They were not routed, however: quite on the
> contrary, they inflicted heavy losses to the IDF. The 7th AB, for
> example, had only seven tanks remaining at the time of the cease-fire.
>
>> In close ground support flying the pilot must be well rested. When
>> he
> takes
>> off he only knows what sector on he is to patrol. He has no
>> designated targets to be briefed on. His targets are communicated
>> to him from the ground forces that need an airstrike at a set of
>> co-ordinates.
>
> Yeah, this was tried on 7, 8, 9 and 10 October 1973, with the result
> that the IDF/AF lost over 80 combat aircraft shot down and over 150
> damaged...
>
>> If there is
>> time he does a flyover at susonic speed and Id's his target(s) and
>> then on the next pass unloads it. Sometimes he is asked for
>> specific ordinence
> and
>> a direction of the attack. That is common when they are against a
>> line of heavy firing from hidden troops. They ask for Nalpalm from
>> one direction from a start point. That causes a large line of
>> incinerating fire that cannot be put out till it all burns off. The
>> pilot only knows that he and the number of planes that will be in
>> that sector. Nothing is known about what targets he will hit, when
>> or where in that sector. If on his return
> to
>> the field he still has ordinence and can find a target of oportunity
>> he
> will
>> use what is left to take that out.
>
> Sorry, but I doubt I ever read anything as senseless as this.
>
>> Briefing time is not needed for those missions, just pilots that are
> rested
>> and planes loaded with the ordinence and fuel.
>
> Aha. Briefings are not needed now either? You don't really know what
> are you talking about, or?
>
>>>> Not every pilot
>>>> could fly 24 * 7 any way for the entire war.
>>>
>>> As a matter of fact, nobody can do this. Not "even" the Israelis:
>>> please, permit them to remain human beings. Four sorties a day - and
>>> for a single day - yes, but that's already the limit. Three a day
>>> for duration of three, four, perhaps five days. That can function
>>> too. But more would only decrease the capability of the pilot: it
>>> would simply drain him down.
>>>
>>
>> But make the ratio of pilots to planes heavier on the number of
>> pilots to planes and the IAF could give the pilots a break after
>> short periods and less sorties. That is how the IAF opperated in
>> both the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars as well as against the
>> Palestinians in Lebanon. Any tired
> pilot
>> could be given a break when he landed and another pilot would be
>> available to relieve him for some time to rest.
>
> In the war, Matt, there are no "tired" or "rested" pilots: there are
> pilots that can fly and others that can't. Period.
>
> You have several combat-experienced pilots on this NG: go and ask Ed
> Rasimus if he would explain it any other way.
>
> >> So while they refitted the
>>>> planes with more fuel, refilled Gpods, and other weapons used up,
>>>> they
>>> often
>>>> changed pilots allowing the pilot that already flew 1 to 5 missions
>>>> to get some rest and a fresh rested pilot took his place.
>>>
>>> Could you name a single Israeli pilot that flew five sorties in one
>>> day, either in 1967 or 1973? I couldn't. Feel free to correct me,
>>> but I can only remember several that flew four sorties on the first
>>> day of the Six Day War, not a single one that flew as much in 1973.
>>
>>
>> Over the 1/4 of the first wave against Egypt flew 5 sortees the
>> first day
> in
>> '67.
>
> Look: I asked you for names. I can mention names of the one or two
> IDF/AF pilots that flew four missions on that day. You say one
> quarter of them did so. OK. Can you mention even one name of an
> IDF/AF pilot that flew five sorties on that day?
>
>> The story about this was on the History Channel as well
>> as in a book by one of the lead pilots, (I do not rememeber his
>> name).
> The
>> Show on the History Channel was one of a series called "Air Power".
>
> Oh, now I understand everything. Thank's Lord, there is a "History
> Channel". You never came to the idea that they could be wrong about
> this?
>
> Have you ever heard about some stuff called "books" or something
> similar? I've heard these are made of paper and ink, and one might be
> forced to go to the so-called "book-shops" or "libraries" in order to
> get them, and then even have to "read" (spelling?) these too....
>
> But, they say one can learn quite some stuff from reading these
> strange things.
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of Ciaro
where some of the air bases had been moved after the Six Day War. They flew
and bombed the norther Air Bases in Syia nearer to Turkey as well. A lot
further than you incicate. Those are excptions I will admit but they were
long and strenous and tired those pilots out as they could not fly anything
near direct routes due to the SAM Threats. Also A single flight for ground
support was several sortees all rolled into one. They might be called at
times to make 6 or more runs at enemy ground troops, armor, or
installations, as well as field artilery. After these they needed relief,
there is something very taxing coming in at 50 feet and bombing an enemy
position when a miss could kill a lot of IDF troops. So the usual pattern
(History of Air Power) was to relieve them as soon as they landed and ready
the aircraft with a fresh, rested pilot for the next ground suppot mission.
At times IAF Pilots were called in to hit troops less than 100 yards away
from the IDF soldiers that called in the strike. How many time could you do
that type of sortee and keep at it? The quicker they got to rest and try
to relax the quiker they rested enough to do it all over again. Each plane
could fly double the number of such missions and not burn out the pilots.


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Peter Kemp wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:39:16 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
> > wrote:
>
>> Peter Kemp wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:04:20 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew
>>> Ackerman" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Cooper wrote:
>>>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>>>> message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and
>>>>>> ICBMS, and S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read
>>>>>> anything till here about "IRBMS".
>>>>>
>>>>> IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere
>>>>> between
>>>>> 1.500 and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not
>>>>> "tactical" or "short range".
>>>>>
>>>> Then why does Jane's Catalog of weapons held by all nations by
>>>> nation and by catagory not mention them?
>>>
>>> Because you're not using it properly. Get your copy of Janes
>>> Strategic Weapons Systems off the shelf and start reading, there's
>>> quite a lot of data on IRBMs in there, plus the contents of all the
>>> strategic weapons treaties from SALT 1 onwards.
>>>
>>> Peter Kemp
>>
>> Funny the latest copy I have the update for calls them Medium Range
>> not Intermediate, perhaps they are using both terms based on the
>> person that does that particular entry. It was also called Medium
>> Range when they all the sources about the Cuban Missile Crisis
>> describe the class of Missiles being set up by the Soviets there and
>> when they talk of the old Jupiter sites in Turkey of that time.
>
> Well, my copy of JSWS is at work so it will have to wait until Monday.
> However, after a 15 second search on the internet I found the
> following definition...
>
> SRBM- Short Range Ballistic Missiles (0 - 1,000 km)
> MRBM- Medium Range Ballistic Missile (1,000 - 2,500 km)
> IRBM- Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (2,500 - 3,500 km)
> LRICBM- Limited Range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (3,500 -
> 8,000 km)
> FRICBM- Full Range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (8,000 - 12,000
> km)
>
> at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/missile-overview.htm
>
>
> And
>
> Missile Ranges
> SRBM
> Short-range ballistic missile (<1,000 km)
> MRBM
> Medium-range ballistic missile (1,000-3,000 km)
> IRBM
> Intermediate-range ballistic missile (3,000-5,500 km)
> ICBM
> Intercontinental ballistic missile (5,500+ km)
>
> at
>
> http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles.asp
>
> So both sites agree that MRBM and IRBM are different, even if they
> disagree on the definitions. Watch this space for the Janes
> definitions.
>
> Peter Kemp

Thank you. I will also try to re-read the section in Jane's. They may be
different and I then missed that. Hey I am only human :-)

--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Cooper wrote:
> > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Tom Cooper wrote:
> >>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> >>> message ...
> >>>> Quant wrote:
> >>>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> >>>>> message >...
> >>>>>> Arie Kazachin wrote:
> >>>>>>> In message > - "Matt A.00 01
> >>>>>>> is Matthew Ackerman" > writes:
> >>> <snip>
>
> They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of Ciaro
> where some of the air bases had been moved after the Six Day War.

Just a second: in your post above you said this happened during the Six Day
War. Now you say it happened afterwards. Would you be so kind to agree with
yourself so we could finally find out when exactly this happened?

> They flew
> and bombed the norther Air Bases in Syia nearer to Turkey as well.

When?

In 1967, the northernmost Syrian airfields hit by the IDF/AF were near
al-Ladhiqiyah and T.4/Tiyas.

In 1973, no airfields in either area were hit.

> A lot
> further than you incicate.

Where?

> Those are excptions I will admit but they were
> long and strenous and tired those pilots out as they could not fly
anything
> near direct routes due to the SAM Threats. Also A single flight for ground
> support was several sortees all rolled into one. They might be called at
> times to make 6 or more runs at enemy ground troops, armor, or
> installations, as well as field artilery.

The situation in 1973 was so that by the time they would try to make the
second run on their targets most of the Israeli aircraft were either shot
down or at least damaged. That's what happened to the 201st Sqn IDF/AF,
which lost 6 Phantoms during the Op Dogman 5, on the morning of 7 October
1973. This included the F-4E, flown by unit commander: he was shot down
after he missed the target on the first run, turned around and tried it
again....

One of those strange things of paper and ink I described in my last post,
the book with the strange title "Israel's Best Defence", written (former
IDF/AF pilot) Col. Elizer "Cheetah" Cohen describes this in detail.

Cohen was brazen enough in that book to say that he participated in the wars
1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Yet, nowhere in that book is he describing
anything of what you're talking about. Quite on the contrary. What do you
think, could it be he knows it better than you or the History Channel?

> After these they needed relief,
> there is something very taxing coming in at 50 feet and bombing an enemy
> position when a miss could kill a lot of IDF troops.

Really?!?!? You got to be kiddin....

So, how it then came they flew five missions a day?

> So the usual pattern
> (History of Air Power) was to relieve them as soon as they landed and
ready
> the aircraft with a fresh, rested pilot for the next ground suppot
mission.

Are you sure? They really put _fresh_ pilots into their planes? How fresh
were these? Factory-fresh, as fresh as wet paint, or as fresh as the sushi
in the local Jap restaurant?

BTW, what is "History of Air Power"? Another show on the History Channel?

> At times IAF Pilots were called in to hit troops less than 100 yards away
> from the IDF soldiers that called in the strike. How many time could you
do
> that type of sortee and keep at it?

Well, let's see: the USAF, USN and USMC Scooter and Phantom and other pilots
were doing this at such places like Khe Sanh so two or three times a day.
Their usual tour of duty was either a year or so (USAF) or between six and
nine months (USN). Cambodian T-28 and MIG-17-pilots at least once a day at
the Plain de Jars and similar stinking holes. Their tours of duty lasted
until they were killed (either by the enemy or the own regime). The Iranian
F-5 pilots so two or three times at day at the Karaqeh Plain, Shalamcheh,
Majnoon, along the Shatt al-Arab and so many other places. They also had an
endless tour of duty: most of those still alive in 1988 had over 1.500
combat sorties under their belt...

Oh, sorry: your super-human Israeli pilots can't compare to all of these
examples: simply ignore what I said.

> The quicker they got to rest and try
> to relax the quiker they rested enough to do it all over again. Each
plane
> could fly double the number of such missions and not burn out the pilots.

Matt, to be honest: if I hear once again a statement like this I'll probably
crack a rib and then have to pay a visit to my doctor. Please, have mercy
with my insurance.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

> Nice speech Tom... running for the Iranian Pro-Democracy Freedom &
> Human Rights Party?... oops, Iran doesn't allow political opposition
> nor care for human rights. Iran is too busy these days with its covert
> nuclear weapons program and terrorist funding... the ultimate goal of
> which is to eliminate the Jewish state like all their neighbors (aka
> Islamic cohorts).

Rob,
you're a killer!

Actually I was just trying it as the top candidate of the Tudeh (Iranian
Communist Party) for Majlis. Namely, your info is wrong: political
opposition is permitted in Iran, albeit not all sorts of it. Given that we
helped the revolution in 1979, and it was actually us who brought the
Mullahs in power, from time to time we are permitted to work legaly. Our
ultimate goal is to impose the dictature of the workers in Iran, then the
whole Middle East, Andora, Vatikan, and then also in the USA.

....you just wait and see.

> BTW, I live in Northern California which is in range of nuclear
> weapons from the FSU, Chinese missile subs, and future DPRK 3-stage
> missiles... not to mention the threat every American faces with
> nuclear terrorism, should Al Qaida get their grubby hands on a small
> tactical device or ULY micronuke.

You realy provoked me now, and I'm oh so mad now, I can't hold myself back
any more (standing up and pointing with the finger at you): Let me tell you
that all of you dirty capitalist and islamist extremist dogs will get what
you deserve, sooner or later. We will nuke you until you accept peace.

> Tom, please stick to co-authoring pro-Iranian fiction and leave
> reality based dialogue to others.

How could I?

But hell, what else can one like you expect from a pro-Iranian Communist
with imperial tendentions?

Oh, have I said "hell"? There is no such place.... OK. Well, then, in the
name of Holly Stallin and Mao, what else can an imperalist ******* like you
expect from a brave pro-Iranian Communist - like me?

In that sence, let me also warn you: in some other places, I'm also known as
a dangerous agent and an imperialist text-writer. Don't you dare to spread
your Zionist propaganda on me....

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...


> They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of Ciaro

BTW, Matt,
since when is Alexandria east of Cairo?

I tought on the History Channel they try to teach history, not re-draw the
maps....

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>
>> They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of
>> Ciaro
>
> BTW, Matt,
> since when is Alexandria east of Cairo?
>
> I tought on the History Channel they try to teach history, not
> re-draw the maps....
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

If you read up on those raids the planes stayed over target for a long time.
The premise falsly made was that the IAF did not fly that many hours to need
to have pilots to rotate inorder to rest.

--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>> Nice speech Tom... running for the Iranian Pro-Democracy Freedom &
>> Human Rights Party?... oops, Iran doesn't allow political opposition
>> nor care for human rights. Iran is too busy these days with its
>> covert nuclear weapons program and terrorist funding... the ultimate
>> goal of which is to eliminate the Jewish state like all their
>> neighbors (aka Islamic cohorts).
>
> Rob,
> you're a killer!
>
> Actually I was just trying it as the top candidate of the Tudeh
> (Iranian Communist Party) for Majlis. Namely, your info is wrong:
> political opposition is permitted in Iran, albeit not all sorts of
> it. Given that we helped the revolution in 1979, and it was actually
> us who brought the Mullahs in power, from time to time we are
> permitted to work legaly. Our ultimate goal is to impose the
> dictature of the workers in Iran, then the whole Middle East, Andora,
> Vatikan, and then also in the USA.
>
> ...you just wait and see.
>
>> BTW, I live in Northern California which is in range of nuclear
>> weapons from the FSU, Chinese missile subs, and future DPRK 3-stage
>> missiles... not to mention the threat every American faces with
>> nuclear terrorism, should Al Qaida get their grubby hands on a small
>> tactical device or ULY micronuke.
>
> You realy provoked me now, and I'm oh so mad now, I can't hold myself
> back any more (standing up and pointing with the finger at you): Let
> me tell you that all of you dirty capitalist and islamist extremist
> dogs will get what you deserve, sooner or later. We will nuke you
> until you accept peace.
>
>> Tom, please stick to co-authoring pro-Iranian fiction and leave
>> reality based dialogue to others.
>
> How could I?
>
> But hell, what else can one like you expect from a pro-Iranian
> Communist with imperial tendentions?
>
> Oh, have I said "hell"? There is no such place.... OK. Well, then, in
> the name of Holly Stallin and Mao, what else can an imperalist
> ******* like you expect from a brave pro-Iranian Communist - like me?
>
> In that sence, let me also warn you: in some other places, I'm also
> known as a dangerous agent and an imperialist text-writer. Don't you
> dare to spread your Zionist propaganda on me....
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

So you accuse him of being a killer, who did he kill and what proof can you
offer to substantiate that. If you cannot I can suggest a good lawyer that
can take you to the cleaners for Libel, Jackass.

--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Tom Cooper]

"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> >
>
> I leave the interpretation for you (and for the other NG readers) in
> this case.
> You asked:
> Has anybody in Tehran threatened to attack Dimona? To "burn down" the
> whole Israel or whatever else?
>
> So I showed you that the answer is yes.

You're, of course, right, Quant. Heck, must be Israel again supplied Iran a
shipment of malfunctioning MIM-23 I-HAWKs with Magen David star painted on
the fins, so ol' Raf got mad again....

At least I sincerely can't imagine any other reason for such an outburst of
hatred...

> Also:
>
> 1. Not even _one_ statement by _any_ party in Israel threatened to
> destroy Iran in the last decade. I challenge you to stand behind your
> words and to provide a link to prove them.

You have my most sincere and humble apology. I will never again come to the
idea to blame Israel for anything - until the next threatening statement
from an Israeli politician or another Israeli ignorant aggression (in that
way I'll save myself the time I'd need to find all the stuff you asked for
on the internet).

> 2. Rafsanjani is not just a non-important extremist party. He is the
> former president of Iran and has a lot of power to this day.

I can only cite you here: see above.

> > > And if it's not enough that the clergi their is anxious to nuke Israel
> > > then their "reformist" president, khatami was also throwing poison at
> > > Israel when Iran introduced the Shihab 3.
> >
> > He stated that Israel is a threat for security in the Middle East. And,
that
> > is truth. Nothing else.
>
> He was doing it in the ceremony of the introduction of the Shihab 3,
> and Israel was the only foreign country mentioned in that ceremony.

You're right again. This is a clear and obvious sign of Iranian preparations
for a nuclear attack on Israel. I'll report this to DEBKAfile.com: they
announced such attacks on Israel by Syria and Iran already several times -
and were obviously right by doing so.

> Anyone who knows something about international relations would tell
> you that your analysis is wrong. This was a direct threat on Israel.

I admit my mistake, and I'm asking you for your apology. As said above: I'll
never again come to the idea to say that Israel is a threat for anybody -
until the next Israeli threat.

> Also, see the interpretation of Khatami's reference to Israel in
> Iranscope. I posted it bellow.

Khatami is Rafsanjani's marionette. Everybody knows this.

> > Strong Iran is a guarantee for the peace in the Persian Gulf area, as -
and
> > this is something everybody interested should know - as soon as Iran is
not
> > strong there is a war, as somebody attacks it.
>
> Could be.
> But lets not forget that "Tehran threatened to attack Dimona, or to
> "burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else".

Right so: Israel should attack them as first. There is obviously a need for
pre-emptive action. That will certainly establish a stabile peace.

> > > Did you notice the difference between Iran's and Israel's approach?
> >
> > No. I haven't. Sharon also threatened already several times that Israel
will
> > destroy Bushehr. There were also threats with other stuff.
>
> I don't remember Sharon publicly ever threatened to attack any nuclear
> facility in Iran. Not even once.
> If you could bring a prove to your claims it could be very helpful for
> this debate.

Excuse me that I'm not going to lose my time for searching on the internet
for Sharon's statements. Accept my explanation that you are right and I am
wrong: Israel was never a threat for anybody. It never attacked anybody.
Israel was never an aggressor, nor has it taken what is not belonging to
Israel, or ignored international laws, decisions, and regulations.

In addition, I want to make clear here, that Israel is also poorely armed -
almost defenceless - compared to its neighbours.

> I follow closely this subject and Israel declared that there is a
> growing threat from Iran, but never talked about military action to
> neutralize this threat.

Correct. This NEEEEVER happened.

> I'm posting again the official Israeli Foreign Ministry announced.
> This announcement was made after the ceremony of the introduction of
> the Shihab 3.

Please, gimme more. I'll read it while I hear Stones' "I can't get no
satisfaction".

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> So you accuse him of being a killer, who did he kill and what proof can
you
> offer to substantiate that.

Holly Ho Chi Minh: you're brilliant, Matt!

He killed me, because - with the help of his telepatic capabilities - he
understood my actual intentions and ideas.

> If you cannot I can suggest a good lawyer that
> can take you to the cleaners for Libel, Jackass.

Holly Lenin: what was that?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Cooper wrote:
> > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >
> >
> >> They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of
> >> Ciaro
> >
> > BTW, Matt,
> > since when is Alexandria east of Cairo?
> >
> > I tought on the History Channel they try to teach history, not
> > re-draw the maps....

<snip>

>
> If you read up on those raids the planes stayed over target for a long
time.
> The premise falsly made was that the IAF did not fly that many hours to
need
> to have pilots to rotate inorder to rest.

Aha. I see.

And this places Alexandria due east of Cairo?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Tom Cooper wrote:
>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of
>>>> Ciaro
>>>
>>> BTW, Matt,
>>> since when is Alexandria east of Cairo?
>>>
>>> I tought on the History Channel they try to teach history, not
>>> re-draw the maps....
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> If you read up on those raids the planes stayed over target for a
>> long
> time.
>> The premise falsly made was that the IAF did not fly that many hours
>> to
> need
>> to have pilots to rotate inorder to rest.
>
> Aha. I see.
>
> And this places Alexandria due east of Cairo?
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

No but it does say they flew longer missions than you will admit to Jack!

--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Cooper wrote:
> > "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Tom Cooper wrote:
> >>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> >>> message ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of
> >>>> Ciaro
> >>>
> >>> BTW, Matt,
> >>> since when is Alexandria east of Cairo?
> >>>
> >>> I tought on the History Channel they try to teach history, not
> >>> re-draw the maps....
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>
> >> If you read up on those raids the planes stayed over target for a
> >> long
> > time.
> >> The premise falsly made was that the IAF did not fly that many hours
> >> to
> > need
> >> to have pilots to rotate inorder to rest.
> >
> > Aha. I see.
> >
> > And this places Alexandria due east of Cairo?
> >
>
> No but it does say they flew longer missions than you will admit to Jack!


Jack, huh? How comes this? You said Alexandria is east of Cairo, not me...


But, OK. So, when did they fly such missions? In 1967 or 1973?

In 1967, namely, they flew attacks against places like Aswan, far in
southern Egypt, or against H-3, in western Iraq. That's much further away
from Israel than Alexandria (especially if you place it east of Cairo) -
except you put Aswan and H-3 also east of Cairo too, of course....

In 1973, however, they never flew over Alexandria (reagardless if it's east
of Cairo or not).

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Tom Cooper wrote:
>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> Tom Cooper wrote:
>>>>> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
>>>>> message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East
>>>>>> of Ciaro
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Matt,
>>>>> since when is Alexandria east of Cairo?
>>>>>
>>>>> I tought on the History Channel they try to teach history, not
>>>>> re-draw the maps....
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you read up on those raids the planes stayed over target for a
>>>> long
>>> time.
>>>> The premise falsly made was that the IAF did not fly that many
>>>> hours to
>>> need
>>>> to have pilots to rotate inorder to rest.
>>>
>>> Aha. I see.
>>>
>>> And this places Alexandria due east of Cairo?
>>>
>>
>> No but it does say they flew longer missions than you will admit to
>> Jack!
>
>
> Jack, huh? How comes this? You said Alexandria is east of Cairo, not
> me...
>
>
> But, OK. So, when did they fly such missions? In 1967 or 1973?
>
> In 1967, namely, they flew attacks against places like Aswan, far in
> southern Egypt, or against H-3, in western Iraq. That's much further
> away from Israel than Alexandria (especially if you place it east of
> Cairo) - except you put Aswan and H-3 also east of Cairo too, of
> course....
>
> In 1973, however, they never flew over Alexandria (reagardless if
> it's east of Cairo or not).
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Find that post liar. I never said that it was east only a longer mission.
Put up or shut up! You are a liar sob.

--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Tom Cooper]

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> Find that post liar. I never said that it was east only a longer
mission.
> Put up or shut up! You are a liar sob.

This is your own sentence:

>>They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of Ciaro

I'm sorry that all the maps in my posession show Alexandria "well" to the
north-west of Cairo... But then, I'm a liar, and a SOB, and probably
everybody who ever printed any maps of that area too... Got to be some kind
of Egyptian conspiration: they put Alexandria north-west of Cairo on all of
the maps world-wide, while the city is "well to the east" of Cairo... I'm
sure not even Alexander would find the place any more, it's that well
concealled...

BTW, could you, a honest, knowledgeable, decent, and kind person as you are,
answer at least one of all the questions I asked you about?

For example, I'd like to learn, when where Soviet freighters attacked by
Israeli fighters while in Alexandria (regardless if east or west of Cairo),
during the Six Day War or in 1973, because this is an interesting topic for
me, you seem not to be able to agree with yourself when this happened, and I
never heard about this incident.

Oh, and, it would be good if you could supply this information before dying
of heart attack.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" > wrote in
> message ...
>>>
>>
>> Find that post liar. I never said that it was east only a longer
> mission.
>> Put up or shut up! You are a liar sob.
>
> This is your own sentence:
>
>>> They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of
>>> Ciaro
>
> I'm sorry that all the maps in my posession show Alexandria "well" to
> the north-west of Cairo... But then, I'm a liar, and a SOB, and
> probably everybody who ever printed any maps of that area too... Got
> to be some kind of Egyptian conspiration: they put Alexandria
> north-west of Cairo on all of the maps world-wide, while the city is
> "well to the east" of Cairo... I'm sure not even Alexander would find
> the place any more, it's that well concealled...
>
> BTW, could you, a honest, knowledgeable, decent, and kind person as
> you are, answer at least one of all the questions I asked you about?
>
> For example, I'd like to learn, when where Soviet freighters attacked
> by Israeli fighters while in Alexandria (regardless if east or west
> of Cairo), during the Six Day War or in 1973, because this is an
> interesting topic for me, you seem not to be able to agree with
> yourself when this happened, and I never heard about this incident.
>
> Oh, and, it would be good if you could supply this information before
> dying of heart attack.
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

I stand corrected on that one error. However it still stands that the
missions over it were of a long duration, where the same planes and pilots
stayed over the target area, the port, for more time than most missions and
the pilots had to have releif when they landed, while the planes had to
continue flying. What about that sir? You claimed that they did not fly
that much as to need it. Comment on that if you will.

--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
John Penta > writes:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:03:05 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
>>I gave up & went with Brassey's instead. Much more information, and
>>much less pretence.
>
> Yes, but what's the price for Brassey's like in the US?

Let'me check ... The Year 2000 edition listed for about $80.00 US,
less 20% for buying it form a distributer. The technical information
is much more comprehensive than _Jane's_, and covers a much wider
timeframe. (In other words, it has accurate information on older
stuff still in service.)

When you compare it to the new "streamlined" versions of _Jame's_,
going at more than $150.00 US a pop, I know where I'd rather put my
money.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman]

Peter Stickney wrote:
> In article >,
> John Penta > writes:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:03:05 -0400, (Peter
>> Stickney) wrote:
>>
>>> I gave up & went with Brassey's instead. Much more information, and
>>> much less pretence.
>>
>> Yes, but what's the price for Brassey's like in the US?
>
> Let'me check ... The Year 2000 edition listed for about $80.00 US,
> less 20% for buying it form a distributer. The technical information
> is much more comprehensive than _Jane's_, and covers a much wider
> timeframe. (In other words, it has accurate information on older
> stuff still in service.)
>
> When you compare it to the new "streamlined" versions of _Jame's_,
> going at more than $150.00 US a pop, I know where I'd rather put my
> money.

I will say I never considered subscribing to them. Do they give regular
updates between issues for *Subscribers* ? I will have to check out at
least one copy of it and perhaps switch over. It is not a matter of the
money but the information and it being kept updated as to any new
developments that concerns me.

At any rate thanks for the information on an alternative to Jane's. I have
to aggree their level of information has suffered lately.


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/