Yeah right, i wonder why didnt we rename AK47/74 (used by Iraqi army and not only) and give it a new name after that.

 

 

 

Yeah right, i wonder why didnt we rename AK47/74 (used by Iraqi army and not only) and give it a new name after that.

Because the AK is already a proven weapon and did not cause the deaths of hundreds of operators because it was outdated like the T-72 did.  Straw man arguement once again.

 

If you had ever been in the military, especially recently, you'd know that half the stories that come out of training is from personal experiences of the trainers and how easily we wiped out the enemy.

 

I will admit that I gave not yet served in my country's military, but I would imagine that those stories of wiping out the enemy are balanced with the lessons not to underestimate your opponent.  If they are not, then I would question whether or not those individuals should be instructors.

 

Hell, today we had an apache guy come in and do training and he talked about how he would flash lights in the the cockpit to attract gunfire so he'd have someone to kill in theater. How's that for underestimating the enemy?

Please, don't sit back from the safety of your couch and pretend as if you understand the culture or what is being taught, or the manner it is being taught until you actually do it. I don't go around pretending to be a rocket scientist or doctor or that I know their culture or as if how I know how they should run medical school when I have zero experience.

 

And your last comment...He's an Apache pilot. He's the scariest thing in the sky. And if you knew anything about the Apache to make comments about his behavior being foolish, then you would know that they are both pilots, not a pilot and gunner. Like I said, don't comment about things you don't have the slightest clue about.

let me be a bit more blunt. An armor guy is probably going to tell you that in his M1 Abrams he will see the T90 first because he has better optics. He will shoot first because he has a better gun and more range. He will kill the T90 outside of the T90's effective range and  that T90 crew will die.

 

I would call that a gross underestimation of our enemy's capabilities. And that scenario is fact.

 

Yes, I suppose they could throw in there don't drive in reverse towards the T90 while holding fire and park yourself 100m in front of it and wait for it to shoot you so he could teach your "balanced" lesson, but that'd be a waste of time.

 

You want your balanced lesson plan? I'll use the first Gulf War as an example. Iraq had recent Russian equipment and were veterans of the Iran war which lasted a decade. They were the 5th largest army in the world at the time. We crushed Iraq in a 2 week ground campaign. 300,000+ dead on their side and ~200 on ours. We're "overconfident" because the US military is so damn good a balanced lesson (and realistic) is us utterly crushing the enemy.

Iraq had recent Russian equipment

 In their dreams you mean?

 

 

They were the 5th largest army in the world at the time.

 I thought 4th? Or why not 3rd? or 2nd?

 

 

Typical trash stories... Which by the way getting old, and noone in the world believes them (except yourselves)

 

 

George, again... if outdated T72s in Iraq without modern equipment and ammunition were destroyed, that doesnt mean Russia has to change the name of tank and remake it :) If you give latest Russian T90 to Angola or Ghana and they would try to fight against US and get defeated... then what? Immediately have to develop T-100? Or T-120? 

 

 

It sounds really lame...and old.

 

You're right, They were the fourth largest at the time.

 

h**p://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm

 

"Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world."

Instead of trash stories it's more like your ignorance and Russian fanboyism clouding your vision.

quantity does not mean much at all for modern war. And that quantity fact of Georgian army was used as an argument by Russian  media/officials to show effectiveness of Russian army to wide public. (effectiveness against military of 3rd world countries...).

1. Russia did not state that Georgia is 4th 3rd 5th 6th etc army in the world.

 

2. Air defence in Georgia was not good, but pretty OK, and they at least had TOR-M1 systems operated by ukrainian mercenaries.

 

3. No high tech weapons was used there.