Re: Memories of Adm. Selivanov (5-th squadron USSR NAVY)

[Krztalizer]

Michael says

>Particualrly interesting is that he said that all US battle groups
>in Mediterranean were under permanent targeting from our submarines and
>surface ships with at least with 30 missiles with 2 min readiness at
>the normal distance 300km at any given moment. He said that according
>to the data they had at that time US battle group could intercept no more
>than first 20-22 missiles. Although he said he does not belive that.

So even the Admiral didn't believe it. So why are you quoting something that
even the Admiral of your own fleet didnt't believe?

Don't you get it, Michael? These are fantasies, set in 1979 - the same year
the Soviets slit their collective throats by trying to steal Afganistan. The
Admiral doesn't mention what the failure rates of his own weapons were during
those days - and I'll laugh long and hard if you try to convince anyone that
Soviet missiles of 1979 were better than ours. Were you even born then??

[Michael Petukhov]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> Michael says
>
> >Particualrly interesting is that he said that all US battle groups
> >in Mediterranean were under permanent targeting from our submarines and
> >surface ships with at least with 30 missiles with 2 min readiness at
> >the normal distance 300km at any given moment. He said that according
> >to the data they had at that time US battle group could intercept no more
> >than first 20-22 missiles. Although he said he does not belive that.
>
> So even the Admiral didn't believe it. So why are you quoting something that
> even the Admiral of your own fleet didnt't believe?

No Gordon he was told that US battle group could intercept his first
22 missiles. He did not believe that. He said at very best they (US
battle group) could intercept 10 missiles. But just in case he always
had at least 30 missiles targeted at each battle group at any given
monent. What is not clear for here?

Michael

>
> Don't you get it, Michael? These are fantasies, set in 1979 - the same year
> the Soviets slit their collective throats by trying to steal Afganistan. The
> Admiral doesn't mention what the failure rates of his own weapons were during
> those days - and I'll laugh long and hard if you try to convince anyone that
> Soviet missiles of 1979 were better than ours. Were you even born then??

[Krztalizer]

>I don't see what is so incredibly unbelievable about it. Given
>the common dispositions of ships/fleets in the Eastern Med during that
>time, the Soviets could reasonably keep about 30 missiles in range of
>US vessels.

'In range' is not the same as being able to target the CV. That's what makes
this silly. Think about the SSMs of the day that the Soviets were fielding -
those SS-N-3s were early variants, and the shooting platforms, regardless of
whether on ships or subs, were TOTALLY vulnerable when they actually got into
position to fire. How long to set their gyros? And while they are sitting
with their pants down, waiting to fire, Cowboys are getting firing orders a few
meters below their wakes. *One* salvo might get airborne before lances start
sticking Soviet ships, but that's about it. And to what end? Our Frigate
could have raised holy hell for about 2 minutes before the Novorosiisk's
cruisers and submarines chopped us to bits, but to what end? Yeah, the Soviet
Navy COULD have committed suicide all those years ago, but thankfully, they had
more sense than that.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Krztalizer]

You didn't read my second paragraph, Michael.