If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ar...ats_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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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/wo...e-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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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/t...hp/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/ |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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/wo...e-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/ |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East | Quant | Military Aviation | 164 | October 4th 03 04:33 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Israeli air force to overfly Auschwitz | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 1 | September 3rd 03 10:12 PM |
Air Force announces acquisition management reorganization | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 21st 03 09:16 PM |