Iranian Naval Power-As of 2007

[Kiaar]

Oh, and from the wikipedia source, a breakdown of USSR aid from the US:

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

[Kermanshah1]

Oh, and from the wikipedia source, a breakdown of USSR aid from the US:

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

True but you didn't destroy the USSR. Gorbatsjov did though he didn't know what he was doing would have that effect and Boris did, the drunken ******.

[Kiaar]

True but you didn't destroy the USSR. Gorbatsjov did though he didn't know what he was doing would have that effect and Boris did, the drunken ******.

I never claimed we did. The US certainly had a part in it though, you can't deny that. It was the USSR's rivalry with the US that was one of the reasons that they spent so much money on the military and not enough on domestic problems.

Again, not the only reason, but one of many.

[Zraver]

natiosn like Cuba, Lybia, USSR were all saved from regimes that were brutal that later regimes were not white knights does not detract form what the US did. I included Iraq on the lsit for a reason, or does some actually think Saddam should have been left in power? The liberation was ruined by Bush's incompetance but that doe snot change the fact that Iraq now has a democratically elected goverment that was able to bring Saddam and his cronies to justice.

Without the US in WW2 the Soviet Union would never have been able to liberate all of its territory incluing the majority of its European population centers. Even with American aid by 1945 the USSR was out of men and industrial production was on the verge of total collapse for lack of workers. This was evident a bit earlier and the Soviets adopted newer tactics that relied less on masses of men and more on wieght of firepower. India and Pakistan liberated itself form the British, but that was post WW2. During the war Japan invaded the Indian subcontinet. and if not for American arms would probalby have won.

America has made huge msitakes in dealing with other countries, some were forced upon us by the times (such as propping up KSA to keep the USSR out of the Persian Gulf and away from Europes oil, or the 1953 coup efforts in Iran) and others via arrogance such as the Bay of Pigs but I beleive that no nation is without mistakes.

[Stealth3]

Oh, and from the wikipedia source, a breakdown of USSR aid from the US:

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

All those contributions were insignificant in terms of WW2. For example, the Soviets lost 1600 tanks in in battle alone. In a few days of war, they lost that much.

American tanks that were supplies (Sherman and cheap Stuart light tanks) were useless on the Russian front. There are reports of the Russians not even using the Sherman because of its tracks not suited for the terrain and because rubber components were in the track.

As for the rest of the stuff, they were good contributions but it didn't change the outcome of the war. Saying that would be joke of the year.
It is true that without that aid, it would have been harder for the Soviets to win, but their victory was still embedded in stone.

If you turn the logic around, you can conclude that the Soviets save the US's *** since 80% of the German army was destroyed on the Eastern Front. Now you see how stupid that logic sounds?

About Japan, their army would have been weak for the Red Army. Japan was suited for island wars, therefore the carriers. Also, Japan dragged the US into the war, so it wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union, but continuing to take parts of China and bomb the crap out of US Pacific bases.
So the US didn't do anybody a favor by fighting Japan, it did itself a favor.


Zraver have you not read anything I wrote? Being ignorant and continuing posting your crap myths shows your maturity or lack of. Show some understanding of history before talking about such issues. It is clear that you know nothing of WW2 history.

[Zraver]

All those contributions were insignificant in terms of WW2. For example, the Soviets lost 1600 tanks in in battle alone. In a few days of war, they lost that much.

American tanks that were supplies (Sherman and cheap Stuart light tanks) were useless on the Russian front. There are reports of the Russians not even using the Sherman because of its tracks not suited for the terrain and because rubber components were in the track.

As for the rest of the stuff, they were good contributions but it didn't change the outcome of the war. Saying that would be joke of the year.
It is true that without that aid, it would have been harder for the Soviets to win, but their victory was still embedded in stone.

If you turn the logic around, you can conclude that the Soviets save the US's *** since 80% of the German army was destroyed on the Eastern Front. Now you see how stupid that logic sounds?

About Japan, their army would have been weak for the Red Army. Japan was suited for island wars, therefore the carriers. Also, Japan dragged the US into the war, so it wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union, but continuing to take parts of China and bomb the crap out of US Pacific bases.
So the US didn't do anybody a favor by fighting Japan, it did itself a favor.


Zraver have you not read anything I wrote? Being ignorant and continuing posting your crap myths shows your maturity or lack of. Show some understanding of history before talking about such issues. It is clear that you know nothing of WW2 history.


You need to study history, flat out you don't have any idea what your talkign about. I am a double major in history and polisci with a 3.86 GPA who has been studying this stuf since I was a kid. theres not much about WW2 I don't know.

The vesion of the M4 Sherman supplied to Russia was the same as the one used by the USMC with a desiel engine* and did not ronson and its gun was equal to the Russian 76mm and it had equivalent armor and manuverability. The Russians had whole tank armies made up of Shermans. The Staurt/Honey Light tank was the best (small gun) light tank of the war and frontal armor suppior to early German medium tanks (Pz III, PV IVG)

As for the rest of the supplies, the Soviet Union had to strip its feilds of men, with out US food the USSR would have starved. Without trucks to supply the frontline the Germans would have not been over run during Bagration becuase horse drawn carts and panji's could not have kept up. Without the 8th Airforce battling the Luftwaffe to death over Europe the Russians would have faced another million men and thousands more 88mm guns as well as 2 more Luftflottes which would have meant the VVS never would have achieved air domiance after 44. The USSR was never able to provide all the tools her soldiers needed to win. Stalin and Stavka made a conscious choice to rely on imports in critical areas and to focus on guns for doemstic production. Part of this was nessecity, alot of production was lost to the invader in the west. And the Russian miracle in the East was not nealry so complete as people think. Tankograd spent much of the war without roofs over the factories, or proper housing for the workers The shift east also disrupted production and Russia did not achieve a palpable lead in numbers until after the Battle of Kursk.

As for Japan vs the USSR you might want to look up the early history of the most famous Russian of WW2- Zhukov. He first gained noterity in 1938 after the short sharp Glakin Ghol war vs Imperial Japan. His battle hardened far eastern divsions saved Moscow in 41 after Stalin got word from his (German) spies in Tokyo that Japan's goal was the west and not the USSR, allowing Stalin to pull troops west for the counter attack that drove the German Army back.

Could the USSR have won without the west? Doubtful, throughout the war Germany had higher steel production nearly equal AFV production**, upwards of 10 million men in the feild, superior technology and other advantages. The best Stalin could realistically expected was a draw somewhere west of the Urals (which is why he had Molotov in secrets talks in early 43). This would have meant the loss of most of European Russia, Belorus, and the Ukraine the heart, mind, and muslce of the Soviet state.

* Becuase USMC units had to be supplied by naval vessels that used deisel turbines USMC tanks were equipped with deisel engines. This proved benifical to the USSR whose industrilisation in the 30's had emphasized desiel over gasoline. For the US Army, Britian, and Germany with thier backgorund of civil automotion gasoline was the obvious choice beucase of refining capacity.

** While the USSR built more T-34's than any other single AFV in the war. German AFV production of all types vs Soviet production of all types was not nealry so lopsided as comparign Pz IV vs T-34 would suggest. If Germany had not had to fight on so many other fronts the Panzer reserves so carefully horded by Mainstein (the source of the German armored might for the Watch on the Rhine) would have been much larger. While the effecitveness of these reserve reserves is debatable. Soviet losses in the last 4 months of the war very nearly broke the Red Army. One or two more months of fighting like seen around Budapest, Berlin, Seelow etc would probably have seen the Red Army grind to a halt.

[Stealth3]

You need to study history, flat out you don't have any idea what your talkign about. I am a double major in history and polisci with a 3.86 GPA who has been studying this stuf since I was a kid. theres not much about WW2 I don't know.
You should worry about getting a job. With your understand of history, I feel sorry for whoever hires you. And what is "polisci"?

The vesion of the M4 Sherman supplied to Russia was the same as the one used by the USMC with a desiel engine* and did not ronson and its gun was equal to the Russian 76mm and it had equivalent armor and manuverability. The Russians had whole tank armies made up of Shermans. The Staurt/Honey Light tank was the best (small gun) light tank of the war and frontal armor suppior to early German medium tanks (Pz III, PV IVG)
Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Nice job of posting false crap.
I feel like your worthless to correct because you know nothing on the issue. Every little thing you said was wrong. The armor values are not the same, and the T34 had slope armor which counts a lot. The gun is not the same, do some research.
T-34 - 76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 tank gun
Sherman - 75 mm M3 L/40 gun

The speed of the T-34 was about 20 km higher so how dare you even compare them? It had wider tracks for mud and winter terrain. It as about 5 tonnes lighter.
Why do you think they called the Sherman the "lighter"?

The rest of the stuff that you said is also wrong, so do your research. I feel sorry for whoever believes you.


The rest of your article is so flawed, that I will fill up a page correcting you. I won't bother with that. I already proved you wrong on obvious facts, I won't correct you again. Do the research and correct yourself. This is a forum and nobody cares, but in the real world nobody will take your crap.

Edit: Also note that T-34 models from 1943 and up (T34-85) were fitted with a 85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun. You said so many false and inaccurate statements, that I won't bother to take you seriously anymore.

Have a nice day.

[Zraver]

You should worry about getting a job. With your understand of history, I feel sorry for whoever hires you. And what is "polisci"?

Political Science


Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Nice job of posting false crap.
I feel like your worthless to correct because you know nothing on the issue. Every little thing you said was wrong. The armor values are not the same, and the T34 had slope armor which counts a lot. The gun is not the same, do some research.
T-34 - 76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 tank gun
Sherman - 75 mm M3 L/40 gun

The speed of the T-34 was about 20 km higher so how dare you even compare them? It had wider tracks for mud and winter terrain. It as about 5 tonnes lighter.

M-4A1
Weight 30.3 tonnes (66,800 lb)
Length 5.84 m (19 ft 2 in)
Width 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in)
Height 2.74 m (9 ft)
Crew 5 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver, co-driver)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor 19 - 91 mm
Primary
armament 75 mm M3 L/40 gun
90 rounds

Secondary
armament 1x .50 cal Browning M2HB machine gun
300 .50 rounds
2×.30-06 Browning M1919A4 machine guns
4,750 .30-06 rounds

Engine Continental R975 C1 gasoline
400 hp (298 kW) gross @ 2400 rpm
350 hp (253 kW) net @ 2400 rpm
Power/weight 14 hp/tonne
Suspension Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS)
Operational
range 120 miles @ 175 US gal (145 imp. gal) / 80 octane
193 km @ 660 l / 80 octane
Speed 38.5 km/h (24 mi/h) (brief)

Designer T-34 Main Design Bureau
Designed 1937–40
Produced 1940–56
Number built about 84,070
Variants see T-34 variants
Specifications (T-34 Model 1941)
Weight 26.5 tonnes (29.2 short tons)
Length 6.68 m (21.9 ft)
Width 3.00 m (9.8 ft)
Height 2.45 m (8.0 ft)
Crew 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor 52 mm (2.0 in)
Primary
armament 76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 tank gun
Secondary
armament 2×7.62 mm (0.308 in) DT machine guns
Engine 12-cyl. diesel model V-2
500 hp (370 kW)
Power/weight 17.5 hp/tonne
Suspension Christie
Operational
range 400 km (250 mi)
Speed 53 km/h (33 mph)


The two tanks are remarkably similar, both used sloped armor the Sherman having better thickness but being slightly slower,the Sherman also had much better quality steel than war time T-34's that were rather well known for shattering under impact. Several examples or pictures of shattered T-34's still exist. The guns were of roughly the same hittign power both being unable to defeat German Panthers and Tigers from the front.


Why do you think they called the Sherman the "lighter"?

If you had bothered to read my post I adressed that issue. The M4A1 and A3 variants supplied to the US Army and the Shermans provided to the UK used gasoline. Models provided to Russia and the USMC used desiel and did not "ronson" when hit.


The rest of the stuff that you said is also wrong, so do your research. I feel sorry for whoever believes you.

Prove it, except you can't.


The rest of your article is so flawed, that I will fill up a page correcting you. I won't bother with that. I already proved you wrong on obvious facts, I won't correct you again. Do the research and correct yourself. This is a forum and nobody cares, but in the real world nobody will take your crap.

You haven't corrected anybody and everythign I said is correct. If you could refute it you would have instead you resorted to ad hominem attacks.


Edit: Also note that T-34 models from 1943 and up (T34-85) were fitted with a 85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun. You said so many false and inaccurate statements, that I won't bother to take you seriously anymore.

Have a nice day.

And your point? Later Shermans had the highly effective 76mm cannon with APBC and the tank was equipped with thicker armor and wet storage for the ammo- M4A3/76W. The best war time Sherman the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" saw service agaisnt T-34/85's in Korea and handily defeated them. Shermans also beat the T-34/85 in the Arab-Israeli wars.

[Stealth3]

The two tanks are remarkably similar, both used sloped armor the Sherman having better thickness but being slightly slower,the Sherman also had much better quality steel than war time T-34's that were rather well known for shattering under impact. Several examples or pictures of shattered T-34's still exist. The guns were of roughly the same hittign power both being unable to defeat German Panthers and Tigers from the front.

Wrong, the Sherman doesn't use slope armor. Not like the T34, and comparing it with the T34 is idiotic. The Sherman is a piece of crap compare to it. Read some damn historical accounts. The T34 is one of the best tanks of WW2 while the Sherman is one of the lackluster of WW2. And did you not hear that versions 1943 and up were fitted with more armor and an 85 mm gun?

And why the heck did you ignore what I said about speed, track thickness and everything else? Geez you sure know how to debate do you?
If you had bothered to read my post I adressed that issue. The M4A1 and A3 variants supplied to the US Army and the Shermans provided to the UK used gasoline. Models provided to Russia and the USMC used desiel and did not "ronson" when hit.
What are you talking about? It was called a lighter because of its ammo compartment. When hit, the ammo would go in flames. Not because of its engine.

And your point? Later Shermans had the highly effective 76mm cannon with APBC and the tank was equipped with thicker armor and wet storage for the ammo- M4A3/76W. The best war time Sherman the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" saw service agaisnt T-34/85's in Korea and handily defeated them. Shermans also beat the T-34/85 in the Arab-Israeli wars.
My point is none of those Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union. You might as well bring in the Firefly.....

I'm done talking to you, you have no idea how to debate, and its the second time you falsify info. You said they were the same, now their similar, yet in reality theres a huge difference.

[Zraver]

I didn't falsify anythingWrong,

the Sherman doesn't use slope armor. Not like the T34, and comparing it with the T34 is idiotic

Your completely ignorant you know that right? The Sherman did use sloped armor jsut look at pictures of the two tanks it also did not have the T-34's dangerous shot trap, it also had thicker frontal armor. The ammo fire problems also existed in the T-34 with its thinner armor which is why Russia lost tens of thousands of them, at least in the sherman you had the Wet storage solution. Like I said Soviet models also had deseil engines which also greatly reduced the rsk of fires.

Wet stowage for ammunition was added in an attempt to combat fires. Thirty-eight gallons of water mixed with antifreeze and an anti-corrosion product called "ammudamp" was needed for 100 shells. The suffix 'W' indicated this modification, as in M4A3(75)W.

The T34 is one of the best tanks of WW2 while the Sherman is one of the lackluster of WW2.

The Sherman didn't earn its reputation until after Normandy when the ordance coprs haivng failed to convivne the army to upgrade did not follow its schedule and add the 76mm guns. If you look at the Shermans performance in North Africa and Scicily you see a very different reoutation where the Sherman was the only allied tank capable of taking on the Pz IV on equal terms. Vs the Later Panther and Tiger no medium tank was on even terms until 1945 when the Comet and Centurion were introduced. This also applies to the T-34 whose last two variants the T-34.m43 and T34/85 require dmultiple tanks to take out a single Panther or Tiger exactly as the Sherman.


And did you not hear that versions 1943 and up were fitted with more armor and an 85 mm gun?

And, I already adressed that. The 85mm gun was no more effective vs the Tiger than the upgunned Sherman with the 76mm. The Russians beucase of war time production issues went with bigger HE charges over velocity. The same patter was used with the Animal Killers (SU and ISU 122/152). After the war the Russians excellent gun the D-10 was used but the high tolerances of the gun limite dits useful ness in WW2 to a few JS prototypes and the SU-100.

And why the heck did you ignore what I said about speed, track thickness and everything else? Geez you sure know how to debate do you?

Becuase you dont know what your talking about. Track width and leangth combine with weight determine ground pressure the T-34 had a ground pressure of 9.1 psi the Shermans was 14 (w/o track extensions) this is comapred to a 40 ton T-72 with a ground pressure of 12.8. Simply put the Sherman didn't sink. The T-34's track was 55cm wide (22in) the Sherman's 42.1 cm {16.57in). They may not have been as fast across soupy conditions but they didn't bog down like the very narrow tracked early war designs.

What are you talking about? It was called a lighter because of its ammo compartment. When hit, the ammo would go in flames. Not because of its engine.

Already adressed with the west storage information. However you are giving the impression that the T-34 didn't ignite. Both tanks were dead meat to German high velocity guns and hollow charg epanzerfaust. At least the Sherman was invulnerable to the German pak 38 59mm ATG. The T-34 was vulnrable to this weapon.

My point is none of those Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union. You might as well bring in the Firefly.....

The Soviet Union's nickname for the M4 medium tank was Emcha because the open-topped figure 4 resembled the Cyrillic letter Ч (pronounced "cha").

A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6 percent of all Lend-Lease Shermans.[

Lend-Lease Shipments: World War II," Section IIIB, Published by Office, Chief of Finance, War Department, 31 December, 1946, p. 8.)

Ohh how does it feel to be busted out? Not only did the USSR ge tthe 76mm gun, but a slight majority of all the Shemrans provided had the 76mm as a side note all 76mm equipped tanks had wet storage.


I'm done talking to you, you have no idea how to debate, and its the second time you falsify info. You said they were the same, now their similar, yet in reality theres a huge difference.

Uhmm you lost, you have provide no figures, no sources, and no proof.

have a nice day

[Kermanshah1]

natiosn like Cuba, Lybia, USSR were all saved from regimes that were brutal that later regimes were not white knights does not detract form what the US did.

The US helped the communists defeat Batista? Come on... You supported him fully nad did all you could to keep the dictator in power but you lost. And you didn't help the Russians against the Tsar either, you even attacked Russia after the revolution trying to topple the new regime.


I included Iraq on the lsit for a reason, or does some actually think Saddam should have been left in power? The liberation was ruined by Bush's incompetance but that doe snot change the fact that Iraq now has a democratically elected goverment that was able to bring Saddam and his cronies to justice.

Life under Saddam was heaven for the Iraqis compare to thier life now. hundreds die daily due to suicide bombings, Saddam might have been bad but long not as bad as it is now, you should have left him in power.


Without the US in WW2 the Soviet Union would never have been able to liberate all of its territory incluing the majority of its European population centers. Even with American aid by 1945 the USSR was out of men and industrial production was on the verge of total collapse for lack of workers. This was evident a bit earlier and the Soviets adopted newer tactics that relied less on masses of men and more on wieght of firepower.

Twisting the story, Americans have always been good in turning things their way. The truth is: America would have lost if it wasn't for the Soviet Union. They where the ones that did the fighting and you are the ones that take credit. Their whole country was destroyed, they lost 20 million people while you lost 200,000 and that's cause they fouhgt 60% of the German army on their own while you fought a small part of it together with all other nations at your side.


India and Pakistan liberated itself form the British, but that was post WW2. During the war Japan invaded the Indian subcontinet. and if not for American arms would probalby have won.

The Japanese never invaded the Indian subcontinent, they attacked but didn't advance much. They had to heavy losses in the battles and couldn't break threw so they called it of.


America has made huge msitakes in dealing with other countries, some were forced upon us by the times (such as propping up KSA to keep the USSR out of the Persian Gulf and away from Europes oil, or the 1953 coup efforts in Iran) and others via arrogance such as the Bay of Pigs but I beleive that no nation is without mistakes.

Yes you took out Irans democratic gouvnerment and replaced it with the Shah's dictatorship and now you have created your biggest enemy. Same kind of thing in Cuba, you force them to have a dictator with is your puppet then the people hate him and kick him out and you attack only you lost that one, hopefully you lose in Iran aswell.

[javid khan]

The US helped the communists defeat Batista? Come on... You supported him fully nad did all you could to keep the dictator in power but you lost. And you didn't help the Russians against the Tsar either, you even attacked Russia after the revolution trying to topple the new regime.
.

yeah but US has final laugh you lost cold war, your Soviet collapsed into tiny pieces


Life under Saddam was heaven for the Iraqis compare to thier life now. hundreds die daily due to suicide bombings, Saddam might have been bad but long not as bad as it is now, you should have left him in power.
.

I agree, but we all know truth of Soviet Union in Afghanistan which eventully lead to the collapse of the so called once mighty soviet war machine


Twisting the story, Americans have always been good in turning things their way. The truth is: America would have lost if it wasn't for the Soviet Union. They where the ones that did the fighting and you are the ones that take credit. Their whole country was destroyed, they lost 20 million people while you lost 200,000 and that's cause they fouhgt 60% of the German army on their own while you fought a small part of it together with all other nations at your side.
.

US rebuilt whole world after WWII what USSR do apart from bring misery and poverty to Eastern Europe and North Korea and Cuba and any other commie state


The Japanese never invaded the Indian subcontinent, they attacked but didn't advance much. They had to heavy losses in the battles and couldn't break threw so they called it of.
.

thats because US helped China keep the Japs tied down inside China mainland, ever heard of the flying tigers


Yes you took out Irans democratic gouvnerment and replaced it with the Shah's dictatorship and now you have created your biggest enemy. Same kind of thing in Cuba, you force them to have a dictator with is your puppet then the people hate him and kick him out and you attack only you lost that one, hopefully you lose in Iran aswell.

Iran is doing deals with US in baghdad as we speak, US will never attack Iran everyone knows this

[Kermanshah1]

yeah but US has final laugh you lost cold war, your Soviet collapsed into tiny pieces

I was't discussing who won the cold war but I was arguing with Zravers claims that the US freed Cuba.


I agree, but we all know truth of Soviet Union in Afghanistan which eventully lead to the collapse of the so called once mighty soviet war machine

So what, this isn't about the Soviets, this is about that the US f*cked Iraq up and didn't free it or make it better at all. Saddam killed 200,000 but since the US has "liberated" them and has brought them "democracy" between 60,000 and 900,000 have died.


US rebuilt whole world after WWII what USSR do apart from bring misery and poverty to Eastern Europe and North Korea and Cuba and any other commie state

Again that doesn't take away the fact the US did not free the Soviet Union from the Germans


thats because US helped China keep the Japs tied down inside China mainland, ever heard of the flying tigers


The Chinese did not fight there, neither did the Americans. It where the British and the Indians.


Iran is doing deals with US in baghdad as we speak, US will never attack Iran everyone knows this

Nah, America can never have good relations with Iran. The Zionists woldn't let them.

[javid khan]

I was't discussing who won the cold war but I was arguing with Zravers claims that the US freed Cuba.
.

you werent but i was because its a fact are you running from facts!


So what, this isn't about the Soviets, this is about that the US f*cked Iraq up and didn't free it or make it better at all. Saddam killed 200,000 but since the US has "liberated" them and has brought them "democracy" between 60,000 and 900,000 have died.
.

like i said i agree but soviet crimes are worse


Again that doesn't take away the fact the US did not free the Soviet Union from the Germans
.

US take on crack Japanese fighter aces and German Nazis 7000km from home what u expect , Soviets like cowards took Sakhalin and Kurils islands from Japan in closing days of war when they realise japs give up


The Chinese did not fight there, neither did the Americans. It where the British and the Indians.
.

wrong chinese 5th and 6th root army stop japs in burma, ever heard of the burma road?


Nah, America can never have good relations with Iran. The Zionists woldn't let them.

Iran is home to largest jewish community outside israel itself and Israel helped Iran during Iran-Iraq war come on now who do you think ur talking with

[Zraver]

The US helped the communists defeat Batista? Come on...

Spain


You supported him fully nad did all you could to keep the dictator in power but you lost.

Quite a few (hundreds of thousands) prefer life in the US and will risk everything to get here, Fidel has never the suoport of all Cubans.


And you didn't help the Russians against the Tsar either, you even attacked Russia after the revolution trying to topple the new regime.

But we gave Russia mountiasn of arms and supplies to keep the Germans at bay, but Russia still lost. The US also recognized the Govemrent of Alexander Kerensky as the legitimate goverment.



Life under Saddam was heaven for the Iraqis compare to thier life now.hundreds die daily due to suicide bombings, Saddam might have been bad but long not as bad as it is now, you should have left him in power.

Saddam killed upto 1 million Iraqies between his wars and brutality (this does not include sanctions, 300,000 brutality, 375-600,000 Iran-Iraq war, 100,000 Kuwait War). That breaks down to around41,666 a year on the upper end. According to www.iraqbodycount.org wich list victims by incident the death toll is maxxed at less than 74,366 over 4 years thats 18,951 a year or less than half as deadly.



Twisting the story, Americans have always been good in turning things their way. The truth is: America would have lost if it wasn't for the Soviet Union. They where the ones that did the fighting and you are the ones that take credit. Their whole country was destroyed, they lost 20 million people while you lost 200,000 and that's cause they fouhgt 60% of the German army on their own while you fought a small part of it together with all other nations at your side.

There was no way for America to lose WW2 to Germany who lacked the naval power or long range bombers to strike at North America. Germany and the Soviet Union combined did not equal America's production. The US had the A-bomb by 45 and a bomber that could hit Berlin from North America by 1948. The fact remains that without American suplies the USSR would not have been able to feed itself, move supplies etc. Soviet wartime production was geared almost exclsuively towards guns and tanks (which even then never met the need of the forces in the feild) which are only a part of the requirement to fight a mechanized war. Without SPAM , trucks, tanks, planes, and the tousands of implements of war the US shipped over the USSR, the counter attacks after Kursk never would have been possible. Look at a map of Operation Bagration the death knell of the Wermacht, the massive Soviet advance would not have been able to reach so far or so fast without hundreds of thousands of American trucks. If that offensive had to be supported by horse drawn suplies (like the Germans) Army Group Center might have escaped into Poland battered by intact.



The Japanese never invaded the Indian subcontinent, they attacked but didn't advance much. They had to heavy losses in the battles and couldn't break threw so they called it of.

The invasion of India itself failed, it never really got any momentum but it was tried, but it proves the Japanese had eyes on India and without American and Chinese efforts at keeping Japan tied up India would have been easy prey to the Imperial Army. As for the subcontinet, The IJA took all of Burma which sits on the Indian plate http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TectIndiaTibetCollisUSGS.gif



Yes you took out Irans democratic gouvnerment and replaced it with the Shah's dictatorship and now you have created your biggest enemy. Same kind of thing in Cuba, you force them to have a dictator with is your puppet then the people hate him and kick him out and you attack only you lost that one, hopefully you lose in Iran aswell.

I wish Iran would dump A-jad and the clerics and adopt a govemrent that isn't hell bent on war. Iran gets ride of the clerics, Ameirca gets rid of Bush and peace might jsut break out all over the M.E.

[Kermanshah1]

Spain

If you call colonising freeing then yes.


Saddam killed upto 1 million Iraqies between his wars and brutality (this does not include sanctions, 300,000 brutality, 375-600,000 Iran-Iraq war, 100,000 Kuwait War). That breaks down to around41,666 a year on the upper end. According to www.iraqbodycount.org wich list victims by incident the death toll is maxxed at less than 74,366 over 4 years thats 18,951 a year or less than half as deadly.


He did not kill over a million. People died during his wars but he didn't kill them and even then it would not be a million.
74,366 in 4 years now you must be joking, every day you hear of a new suicide bombing with 100 or more deaths and also people die in the fighting and US bombings. The Iraqis where sertainly better off with Saddam than with this new regime.


There was no way for America to lose WW2 to Germany who lacked the naval power or long range bombers to strike at North America. Germany and the Soviet Union combined did not equal America's production. The US had the A-bomb by 45 and a bomber that could hit Berlin from North America by 1948. The fact remains that without American suplies the USSR would not have been able to feed itself, move supplies etc. Soviet wartime production was geared almost exclsuively towards guns and tanks (which even then never met the need of the forces in the feild) which are only a part of the requirement to fight a mechanized war. Without SPAM , trucks, tanks, planes, and the tousands of implements of war the US shipped over the USSR, the counter attacks after Kursk never would have been possible. Look at a map of Operation Bagration the death knell of the Wermacht, the massive Soviet advance would not have been able to reach so far or so fast without hundreds of thousands of American trucks. If that offensive had to be supported by horse drawn suplies (like the Germans) Army Group Center might have escaped into Poland battered by intact.


Germany might not have been able to invade the US but the US would have sertainly not been able to free Europe and the Germans wwere busy developing nuclear bombs, if it was only the US they were fighting they might have made it in time. Germans where winning in Norht Africa, they started with 300 tanks while thier enemy lost more than that every battle, there is no doubt the Germans were much better than the Brits and Americans. They lost there because they did not have enough of anything and that was because everything they had had been send to fight the Soviets. If all Germans that had been send for the invasion of the Soviet Union had been send to North Africa they would not only be better but they would have more aswell. Then el Alamijn would have fallen and So would Egypt, the Suez canal and Sudan. Then they could help the Itanians take over Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania. There the British did not have enough soldiers, they only won because the Italians wich had numercial advantages and were better equipped fought so badly. Germany could have then invaded Palestine and Trans-Jodrdan via Egypt and Syria, they would be able to use full force and if it wasn't for losing Stalingrad the Spanish would have been allies. They dent men to fight for the Germans only they pulled them back as they didn't want to lose. How could you have invaded Europe if the Germans had their full force stationed there, you only fought 20-30% while the rest was fighting in N-A (not many) and against the Soviets (many).


The invasion of India itself failed, it never really got any momentum but it was tried, but it proves the Japanese had eyes on India and without American and Chinese efforts at keeping Japan tied up India would have been easy prey to the Imperial Army. As for the subcontinet, The IJA took all of Burma which sits on the Indian plate http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TectIndiaTibetCollisUSGS.gif


You helped them? Sure. But you didn't free them as you only supplied them with weapons


I wish Iran would dump A-jad and the clerics and adopt a govemrent that isn't hell bent on war. Iran gets ride of the clerics, Ameirca gets rid of Bush and peace might jsut break out all over the M.E.

Nah that wont happen. Iranians might chose peace with the US over hostilities but only if the US stops trying to take over the Middle East. US is attacking everyone, placing puppet regimes everywhere, interfearing with Irans nuclear program ect. Stop that and your war against muslims and then you'd be able to make peace with Iran. But don't think Iran will kick out their govnerment and you'll have a regime like the Shahs one again, tat wont happen. Iranians hated the Shah, they all wanted to get rid of him (except for some rich ******** that prefered the American culture over the Iranian and wich profited from his regime), we wanted the clerics. everyone hated what had happend to Iran, a muslim nations had now turned into a state of America with your culture wich you think everyone else likes forced up on us. We wanted Iran to be again like it was, muslim and Iranian. That's why Iran chose Khomeini and his regime over that of the Shah. But these clerics are going to far. Sure we don't want all that porno and thikng of the Americans but things like executing a little girl for swimming in her garden... They have gone to far, they torture people and imprison people witch are agains them just like the Shah did. We sont' want criminality like in America but cutting peoples hands off if they steal is not on. The regime has to change but we should not go to far the other way, licking Americas ***, making peace with Israel and that kind of Sh*t.

But even if Iran changes and becomes less extremist and more friendly towards America. Khatami wanted to restore bonds with the US but Bush sais Iran is evil and he will not negotiate with evil. America is to stubborn, they want it all their way. Either Iran stops making it's own weapons, installs a democracy in wich only *** lickers of the US can win, stops it's nuclear program, cuts ties with all "terrorists" and recognises the Zionist state or America doesn't want.

Even if America is willing to sattle for what I said, there is still one big problem: the Zionists. The Zionists have so much power in the US they will not possibly let this happen, Iran has to recognise Israel and stop supporting the freedom fighters. Iran will not do this, Israel will have to be destroyed and the US won't let that happen. Helping the Jews occupying Jerusalem is not the right way to make peace with Iran. Hamas and the other recistance goups wont Israel destroyed and in the other side Israel is not willing to devide the land equally. While muslims wnat either Israel completely gone or maybe the land devided equally the Zionists are thinking between only 1 state and that is Israel or give back the Gaza strip and parts of the West Bank (behind the wall). That is not on, they don't even want to go back to the 1967 borders leave alone the UN peace proposal of dividing it completely equally.

[Oriellien]

There were dozens of American pilots fighting in China against Japanese raiders. Also, while the USSR was fighting 60% of the German army, that doesnt make the other 40% easy, plus the US was fighting Japan at the same time.

And the Germans lost in North Africa...

[Stealth3]

There were dozens of American pilots fighting in China against Japanese raiders. Also, while the USSR was fighting 60% of the German army, that doesnt make the other 40% easy, plus the US was fighting Japan at the same time.

And the Germans lost in North Africa...
It wasn't 60%, it was around 70-80%.

The only reason the Germans lost in North Africa is because they were handicapped. Rommel had little supplies. He was fighting with his hands behind his back. And you know why?

Because all the supplies were going to the Eastern front. And it was the British who were fighting in North Africa mainly, it has little to do with America.

[Vladimir80]

There were dozens of American pilots fighting in China against Japanese raiders. Also, while the USSR was fighting 60% of the German army, that doesnt make the other 40% easy, plus the US was fighting Japan at the same time.

And the Germans lost in North Africa...

It was CCCP that that defeated Hitler, it was CCCP that defeated Japan on the mainland. Don't act like it was USA doing all the work. In actual combat USA didn't even compare to CCCP contribution.

[Kiaar]

It was CCCP that that defeated Hitler, it was CCCP that defeated Japan on the mainland. Don't act like it was USA doing all the work. In actual combat USA didn't even compare to CCCP contribution.

So I'm guessing it was Russia that defeated the entire Japanese Navy and the majority of it's airforce?

CCCP soldiers would also have been starving and their supplies very quickly falling behind the front lines if not for American aid. I've already posted a giant list of those in another thread. Over 100 trains were given to Russia by the US, without which they would have had a lot of trouble moving any supplies forward. They would have kicked out Germany regardless, but the advance would not have been able to move as far forward and many more soldiers would have died doing it.

And obviously the US didn't have as much to fight. The US was only attacked twice on it's own soil- one was a raid, the other a failed attempt by the Japanese to establish a hold in Alaska. Almost the entire war for the US was offensive on both fronts. Russian soldiers didn't have to cross an ocean either and Russia never had to deal with large naval engagements.

On a side note, Russia never had any major engagements after 1939 with Japan in WWII. According to what I can find, anyway, there were never anything more than border skirmishes between the two. The war was over before Russia had a chance to invade.

This was the only major battle I could find between Japan and Russia during the WWII era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Russia won that, but never moved south of that border. Casualties in that battle are also heavily disputed, so it's hard to tell how effective either side was in the battle aside from Russia not losing any ground. Americans and the Chinese did much more to battle Japan on the mainland than Russia did, which had the vast majority of it's forces fighting in western Europe/Russia, whereas the US was split in two entirely different places of the planet.

No one here has claimed the US did all the work, but don't act like the US did nothing either, because it did play a major role whether you want to admit it or not.

[Vladimir80]

So I'm guessing it was Russia that defeated the entire Japanese Navy and the majority of it's airforce?

The Allies begged us to enter Pacific war because they couldn't touch Japanese troops on the mainland. In Operation August Storm we did more in one month than the US did against Japanese Army during the whole war.

CCCP soldiers would also have been starving and their supplies very quickly falling behind the front lines if not for American aid. I've already posted a giant list of those in another thread. Over 100 trains were given to Russia by the US, without which they would have had a lot of trouble moving any supplies forward. They would have kicked out Germany regardless, but the advance would not have been able to move as far forward and many more soldiers would have died doing it.

This debate isn't about supplies... it's about who did the most fighting.


And obviously the US didn't have as much to fight. The US was only attacked twice on it's own soil- one was a raid, the other a failed attempt by the Japanese to establish a hold in Alaska. Almost the entire war for the US was offensive on both fronts. Russian soldiers didn't have to cross an ocean either and Russia never had to deal with large naval engagements.

Exactly... That and the fact your Shermans sucked sooo bad we saved you from the excessive slaughter.


On a side note, Russia never had any major engagements after 1939 with Japan in WWII. According to what I can find, anyway, there were never anything more than border skirmishes between the two. The war was over before Russia had a chance to invade.

This was the only major battle I could find between Japan and Russia during the WWII era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Boy... you need to learn some history son. Look up Operation August Storm and look at what we did.

[Kiaar]

The Allies begged us to enter Pacific war because they couldn't touch Japanese troops on the mainland. In Operation August Storm we did more in one month than the US did against Japanese Army during the whole war.


Operation August Storm was commenced after the war was pretty much over. The first bomb had been dropped, and Japan was already in shambles. The only thing left was whatever ground troops they had.


This debate isn't about supplies... it's about who did the most fighting.


I'd expect you of all people to know that supplies and logistics can be just as important as the actual fighting.



Exactly... That and the fact your Shermans sucked sooo bad we saved you from the excessive slaughter.


It really doesn't matter. 55,000 Shermans were produced during WWII. Sheer numbers alone were overwhelming the Germans. The Sherman was a piece of crap, but there were enough of them that it didn't matter.



Boy... you need to learn some history son. Look up Operation August Storm and look at what we did.

See my post above.
Also, information I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

Even without August Storm Japan was finished, especially after the Emperor saw the A-Bomb.

The operation played a part in Japan's decision to surrender, as the article itself said, but in reality it probably just stopped more nukes from being used assuming Japan wasn't going to surrender from the two bombs anyway. This also took place between the bomb droppings, so Japan hadn't yet felt the effect of the second.

While this was the greatest land battle against Japan, at this time Japan was also more or less defeated. The Navy was gone, the air force was more or less done, and Japan itself was being bombed.

[Vladimir80]

Operation August Storm was commenced after the war was pretty much over. The first bomb had been dropped, and Japan was already in shambles. The only thing left was whatever ground troops they had.

What! The war wasn't over until the Emporer surrendered and he did so because we whiped out the Manchuko Army.


I'd expect you of all people to know that supplies and logistics can be just as important as the actual fighting.

This isn't what this debate is about... it is about combat participation.



It really doesn't matter. 55,000 Shermans were produced during WWII. Sheer numbers alone were overwhelming the Germans. The Sherman was a piece of crap, but there were enough of them that it didn't matter.

Contrary to popular belief it wasn't the crappy Sherman that defeated Hitler. It was the T-34...


See my post above.

See my post above.

Also, information I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

Even without August Storm Japan was finished, especially after the Emperor saw the A-Bomb.

The operation played a part in Japan's decision to surrender, as the article itself said, but in reality it probably just stopped more nukes from being used assuming Japan wasn't going to surrender from the two bombs anyway. This also took place between the bomb droppings, so Japan hadn't yet felt the effect of the second.

The REAL reason USA dropped the A bomb was to encourage the emporer surrender before Red Army took over all of Asia. After what we did to the Manchuko Army was what made the emporer surrender. He didn't give a crap about A bombs... I tell you why. The fire bombings of Tokyo were far worse than the A bombs and he didn't flinch then. He surrendered like the article said, to Red Army superiority.

While this was the greatest land battle against Japan, at this time Japan was also more or less defeated. The Navy was gone, the air force was more or less done, and Japan itself was being bombed.

5 minutes ago you didn't even know about Manchuko defeat and you is crappying on us already.

There was plenty of men, equipment, and supplies left in Manchuria. You Americans always try to belittle others achievements and then take credit for them. :(

[Kiaar]

What! The war wasn't over until the Emporer surrendered and he did so because we whiped out the Manchuko Army.


He also did so largely in part to the nuclear bomb which could wipe out the better part of a city with just one.


This isn't what this debate is about... it is about combat participation.


You can't participate in combat without food and weapons.



Contrary to popular belief it wasn't the crappy Sherman that defeated Hitler. It was the T-34...


I never said it did...



The REAL reason USA dropped the A bomb was to encourage the emporer surrender before Red Army took over all of Asia. After what we did to the Manchuko Army was what made the emporer surrender. He didn't give a crap about A bombs... I tell you why. The fire bombings of Tokyo were far worse than the A bombs and he didn't flinch then. He surrendered like the article said, to Red Army superiority.


That was one reason. The US could have invaded Japan too to race with the Russians, but that would have been even bloodier.


There was plenty of men, equipment, and supplies left in Manchuria. You Americans always try to belittle others achievements and then take credit for them. :(

Men and weapons in Manchuria would not have helped if Japan itself was attacked, considering they had little way of getting home without a Navy.

I've not denied once in this thread the USSR played a huge part in the war. I've merely supporting my original intent that you're belittling the part the US played in the same way you hate when Americans do that to your country.

[Vladimir80]

He also did so largely in part to the nuclear bomb which could wipe out the better part of a city with just one.

Your A bombs were weak, they didn't have enough to make a difference anyway. Firebombing was much more effective at mass terrorism.


You can't participate in combat without food and weapons.

The US gave us those supplies because they didn't want to have to do any REAL fighting.


I never said it did...

Your implication here was that it did... when it fact it was the superiority of the T-34 that overwhelmed the Germans because they used all their armor on the Eastern Front. If you had faced the Germans with their full numbers of Tiger/Panther tanks against all of your Shermans they would have destroyed the invasion.

Sheer numbers alone were overwhelming the Germans.



That was one reason. The US could have invaded Japan too to race with the Russians, but that would have been even bloodier.

The Americans never had the stomach for such an invasion. All they had to do was starve them out. The use of the A bomb was a political decision based on the success of Red Army and their fear that they would take over all of Asia. US did not have to use A bomb nor invade... that is just an excuse for why they used it.



Men and weapons in Manchuria would not have helped if Japan itself was attacked, considering they had little way of getting home without a Navy.

The US never controled the Sea of Japan outright. The loss of Manchuria was a necessity to make them surrender to cut off their supply base.

I've not denied once in this thread the USSR played a huge part in the war. I've merely supporting my original intent that you're belittling the part the US played in the same way you hate when Americans do that to your country.

This whole thread turned into a America won WWII while CCCP did nothing at the hands of another member that you played right along with.

[Kermanshah1]

Without the Soviet Union you would have lost. The Germans were so much better than the allies in Noth Afrika, they lost because they didn't have enough soldiers, tanks or supplies. All German soldiers were send to the East, they used their Air Force in the East and left the Afrika corps without air support, all their supplies went to the east. If the total German army was send to Norht Afrika then Afrika and the Middle East would have been thiers by the time America joined. The British would be finished as their armies would have been destroyed and Germany and Japan (and Italy because if Germans won at AFrika Italy couldn't have been invaded) could together fitght the US and they would have won. Maybe they wouldn't have taken the US mainland but they would have sertainly taken what they wanted and forced America to sign a peace treaty.

This whole thread turned into a America won WWII while CCCP did nothing at the hands of another member that you played right along with.

Because Zraver claimed the America has saved all Soviet states from a brutal reigme. I asked wich regime that was and he sais America saved Russia from Hitler while it was more the other way round.

[Vladimir80]

Because Zraver claimed the America has saved all Soviet states from a brutal reigme. I asked wich regime that was and he sais America saved Russia from Hitler while it was more the other way round.

Well Zraver has been proven to be a fraud so we don't take what he has to say seriously. For a history major he must have graduated from University of Phoenix Online with his knowledge.

[ThePuss]

The US gave us those supplies because they didn't want to have to do any REAL fighting.

You do a great disservice to the US citizens who served and fought during WWII and to all who served in the Allied cause. Let’s not forget the Russian government honoured the sailors of the Artic conveys so they must have valued their contribution. You’re supposedly an ex-soldier, well a comments like makes you more of a keyboard warrior to my mind.

[ThePuss]

Without the Soviet Union you would have lost. The Germans were so much better than the allies in Noth Afrika, they lost because they didn't have enough soldiers, tanks or supplies. All German soldiers were send to the East, they used their Air Force in the East and left the Afrika corps without air support, all their supplies went to the east. If the total German army was send to Norht Afrika then Afrika and the Middle East would have been thiers by the time America joined. The British would be finished as their armies would have been destroyed and Germany and Japan (and Italy because if Germans won at AFrika Italy couldn't have been invaded) could together fitght the US and they would have won. Maybe they wouldn't have taken the US mainland but they would have sertainly taken what they wanted and forced America to sign a peace treaty.

You seriously need to buy a history book, that statement has got more holes than a lump of swiss cheese.

[Vladimir80]

You seriously need to buy a history book, that statement has got more holes than a lump of swiss cheese.

There is nothing wrong with his statements... Rommel and his Afrika Corps was superior as long as they had supplies. It was the decipher of enigma that killed the African campaign.

[ThePuss]

Rommel and his Afrika Corps was superior as long as they had supplies.
They didn't get them because of the RN and RAF pressence in the Med.
At the end of the day who won?
That's all that really matters, not the ifs, buts or maybes.

[Vladimir80]

They didn't get them because of the RN and RAF pressence in the Med.

Nothing of which had anything to do with US... thanks for proving my point. :laugh4:

[ThePuss]

Nothing of which had anything to do with US... thanks for proving my point. :laugh4:
Not really as Operation Torch caused the Africa Korps to have to fight in two directions. Admittedly the US forces performed poorly in the early battles but as time went on the improved and eventually between them they squeezed Germany out of the ME. It also sent a signal to Hitler and more importantly Stalin that the US would commit troops to the Western Front and not just the PTO.

[Zraver]

Vladimir,

T-34 was not superior to German tanks, the Soviets lost tens of thousands of them in combat. The T-34 enjoyed a period of domiance from June 1941 to about March 1942 when German 75mm and longer barreled 50 mm guns. After that point the T-34 had some advantages speed- ground pressure, and NUMBERS, but German tanks had thier own advantages- better guns, radios, better trained crews etc. The same applies to the Sherman 76's some advantages some disadvantages.

Durig WW2 America had 11 million men in arms plus an extensive merchant Marine. In termsn of manpower in actual combat only the USSR had more. The US went with a 100 divsion plan focusing most of its effort sin the air and on the sea. Both of these areas which were German "wins" before America's involvement were critical to winning the ground war.

In North Africa, Rommel's single attempt at defeatign "green" unblooded Ameircan forces failed. After some intial gains at Kasserien Pass, Patoo rallied other American units andquickly plugged the gap and cpunter attaked forcing the German's elite panzer units back. American superority in tanks (75mm Sherman vs 50mm Pz III) artillery, radios, mechnization, and airpower ame the US the only ally to never have spent any signifigant time in retreat beofre rallying and pushing the Germans back. Patton and Montgoemry also teamed up in Operation Husky the first allied ground attack on an Axis nation, and later Italy. Rome was liberated from the Germans beofre D-Day and before Bagration.

In the west the armor battles of the Normandy campaign actually involved more German armor (over the leangth of the campaign) than at Kursk. Some of these units have gone down in history as some of the greatest fightign formations of all time- Panzer Lehr, 12th SS (Hitlerjugend) Panzer Div, 1st Panzer Divsion, 1st SS (Liebanstarte Adolf Hitler) Pnzer Divsion, and the famed Tiger tank ace Whittman. At the same time these storied units were dying in France the massive Russian assualt called bagration was unleashed. How would the Russian advance have faired if these extra tanks had been availabe in the East, of if the Luftwaffe's planes had not died in the massive air battles over Germany?

Did the US do most of the ground fighting? of course not, but it did do most of the air and sea fighting, provided the bulk of the men to the allied cause in the west, and provided the bulk of the supplies. You cannot fight a war on an empty stomach, you cannot fight a mechanized war without trucks. Without American supplies the manpower of the USSR would never have had the tools it needed to push the invader back.

BTW Vlad, this debae isn't about who did the msot fighting, but who contributed the most to victory. And my knowledge of histry is superior to you and your Anti-American Russo-centric view. It's rather funny to watch you claim the USSR beat Japan. The Manchuko army was a ghost of its former self. It was starved for fuel, had not recived modern munitions, its best divisions had been transffered to the pacific, and the IJAAF had been stripped of planes and pilots for the failed effort to secure New Guinea on the belief that the American and Austrailian goal was the Dutch East Indies.

The Emperor had already started the ball rolling looking for a peace solution when Tojo was forced outin July of 1944. By then Japan had already lost and it was simply a matter of time until the American's forced Japan back. The First allied orces to take histoically Japanese territroy was the USMC who secured Okinawa (a prefecture of Japan itself) by June 1945 that is secured a full 2 months ahead of August Storm.

The USSR did a lot of the fighting, and they did most of the dying, but they didn't come anywhere close to all of the fighting. Fightign 60-70% of the Wermacht is an imporessive feat, but that missing % plus the bulk of the Luftwaffe and the massive armoy of men and 88mm guns stuck on air defense duty cannot be discounted. Betwen the force sin Normandy, Italy, and over the skies of the Reich the amount of German manpower faced by the Western allies climbs quite a bit compared to just army vs army.

But you knew that and chose to lie by ommision anyway.

Ohh BTW my college is the University of Central Arkansas where I am a member of the UCA Honors College which was recognized by the Carnegie foundation as one of the best of its kind in America.

[Kermanshah1]

they squeezed Germany out of the ME

The Germans didn't realy fight in the M-E. It were the Vichy French in Syria and they didn't want to fight so surrendered and the Iraqis fought the British in Iraq, the Germans played no major roll in that. It's Noth Afrika we're talking about.

Not really as Operation Torch caused the Africa Korps to have to fight in two directions. Admittedly the US forces performed poorly in the early battles but as time went on the improved and eventually between them they squeezed Germany out of the ME. It also sent a signal to Hitler and more importantly Stalin that the US would commit troops to the Western Front and not just the PTO.

Rommel was succesfull with such small amounth of men, he lost because he didn't have enough men or weapons. Why didn't he have that? Because they were all fighting in the Eastern Front against the Russians. If the Eastern Front hadn't been there the Germans could have used their total force in Africa and then they would have won in North Africa and so destroyed the British army completely. With the Brits out of the Way the Germans and the Japanese could together have fought the Americans, Italy wouln't have been invaded so they would have also helped and the Germans winning in N-Africa could have taken Palestine and Jordan meaning they had conquered the M-E aswell as Syria & Lebanon (under the Vichy French) and Iraq were at their side. Without the Soviets British wouldn't have invaded Iran and Germans could have send forces into India via Iran while Japanese were attacking it from the other side.

Without the Americans the British would still have beaten the Italians (wich could have as well not fought as they were so rubbish) and the Africa corps wich was far to small to win against the massive allied armies it wasw fighting although it was succesfull untill their lack in numbers and supplies (wich were all in the East) became their end. The British with victory in the North woudl have still won in Italy they only needed to take Sicily and Italy surrendered. The Russians would have still won in the East (although it without American supplies would have taken longer and more casualties for the Russians. D-day could still have been done but by far not as effective, this way the Germans would probably have been beaten 1948 and the Russians would have had whole Germany.

The only difference would have been in the East. The Japanese would have invaded China and all colonies of the Allies. Also they would have conquered China but not India. Maybe the allies would have settled for this and peace would have come. If the Russians joined the British they would have won otherwise Japan woudl have their empire.

So: The US did not free Russia, the was not as important as Russia and the Allies could have done without them but couldn't have done without Russia.

[Zraver]

The Germans didn't realy fight in the M-E. It were the Vichy French in Syria and they didn't want to fight so surrendered and the Iraqis fought the British in Iraq, the Germans played no major roll in that. It's Noth Afrika we're talking about.

Not entirely, the battle in North Africa had a direct bearing on keeping the Persian supply route to Russia open.



Rommel was succesfull with such small amounth of men, he lost because he didn't have enough men or weapons. Why didn't he have that? Because they were all fighting in the Eastern Front against the Russians.


This is completely false, Rommel was flown out of North Africa so Hitler's faorite would not be forced to surrender, his deputy was left to do that. When the Axis surrendered 275,000 troops went into captivity after operation Retribution blocked the evacuation fleet. This is more troops than surrendered at Stalingrad.

Quite simply after the reversal agaisnt the Americans and the British defeat of the Mareth Line the Germans were doomed in North Africa. Rommel's problem was supplies not men. Allied air and sea power (often using Ameican supplied equipmnt and running on American supplied fuel, firign american supplied bullets) condcted the worlds first sucessfully air and sea blockade.


If the Eastern Front hadn't been there the Germans could have used their total force in Africa and then they would have won in North Africa and so destroyed the British army completely.


In the east the amount of forces Gemrany could commit was limited by rail capacity, in North Africa it was surface tonnage. In neither case did Germany have enough transport to commit its total force anywhere.


With the Brits out of the Way the Germans and the Japanese could together have fought the Americans, Italy wouln't have been invaded so they would have also helped and the Germans winning in N-Africa could have taken Palestine and Jordan meaning they had conquered the M-E aswell as Syria & Lebanon (under the Vichy French) and Iraq were at their side. Without the Soviets British wouldn't have invaded Iran and Germans could have send forces into India via Iran while Japanese were attacking it from the other side.

and if pigs had wings they could fly. Hitler's refusal to commit airborne forces for an assault on Malta after the heavy losses of Crete ultimately doomed the Axis effort in the Med and thus the M.E.



Without the Americans the British would still have beaten the Italians (wich could have as well not fought as they were so rubbish) and the Africa corps wich was far to small to win against the massive allied armies it wasw fighting although it was succesfull untill their lack in numbers and supplies (wich were all in the East) became their end. The British with victory in the North woudl have still won in Italy they only needed to take Sicily and Italy surrendered. The Russians would have still won in the East (although it without American supplies would have taken longer and more casualties for the Russians. D-day could still have been done but by far not as effective, this way the Germans would probably have been beaten 1948 and the Russians would have had whole Germany.

With its colonial troops tied up fighting the Japanese after Dec 1941 the British could not have launched D-Day without America. By 1944 the Britsh Army was shrinking as units were disbanded to provide re-inforcements.

Without the threat of D-Day the Russian's would ahve faced major problems. The amount of concrete, land mines, men, tanks, guns, and aircraft require dto guard agaisnt the expeced invasion and the air battles over the Reich paved the way for the Russian advances. Becuase Russia lacked an effective interddiction campaign other than partisan bands as the German army fell back its effective rail capacity increased so the material in the west could have been used defnesively in the East. This would have been enough to keep the Red Army in check. Germany was effectively fighting a 4 front war France, Italy, Air, East. Without the drain of the three western fronts some 2 million men, thousands of AFV. thousands of 88mm guns, hundreds of fighters, millions of tons of concrete, 10's of millions land mines, at least 100 more trains Russia would ahve been stopped cold beofre liberating Poland or parts of European Russia/Ukraine



So: The US did not free Russia, the was not as important as Russia and the Allies could have done without them but couldn't have done without Russia.

Please show how lacking American material and facing the addition of the forces and material used in the West the Soviet's could have beaten Germany when by May 1945 they were out of men and industrial production plummetted as the factories were combed for men for the front. At the very least the men used in August Storm would not have been avaiable for the attack on the Japaneses and the USSR would ahve to have used the sub par far Eastern divsions which had not been upgraded durign the war and would have had to fight the Japanese without modern equipment or combat experiance.

[ThePuss]

The Germans didn't realy fight in the M-E. It were the Vichy French in Syria and they didn't want to fight so surrendered and the Iraqis fought the British in Iraq, the Germans played no major roll in that. It's Noth Afrika we're talking about.



Rommel was succesfull with such small amounth of men, he lost because he didn't have enough men or weapons. Why didn't he have that? Because they were all fighting in the Eastern Front against the Russians. If the Eastern Front hadn't been there the Germans could have used their total force in Africa and then they would have won in North Africa and so destroyed the British army completely. With the Brits out of the Way the Germans and the Japanese could together have fought the Americans, Italy wouln't have been invaded so they would have also helped and the Germans winning in N-Africa could have taken Palestine and Jordan meaning they had conquered the M-E aswell as Syria & Lebanon (under the Vichy French) and Iraq were at their side. Without the Soviets British wouldn't have invaded Iran and Germans could have send forces into India via Iran while Japanese were attacking it from the other side.

Without the Americans the British would still have beaten the Italians (wich could have as well not fought as they were so rubbish) and the Africa corps wich was far to small to win against the massive allied armies it wasw fighting although it was succesfull untill their lack in numbers and supplies (wich were all in the East) became their end. The British with victory in the North woudl have still won in Italy they only needed to take Sicily and Italy surrendered. The Russians would have still won in the East (although it without American supplies would have taken longer and more casualties for the Russians. D-day could still have been done but by far not as effective, this way the Germans would probably have been beaten 1948 and the Russians would have had whole Germany.

The only difference would have been in the East. The Japanese would have invaded China and all colonies of the Allies. Also they would have conquered China but not India. Maybe the allies would have settled for this and peace would have come. If the Russians joined the British they would have won otherwise Japan woudl have their empire.

So: The US did not free Russia, the was not as important as Russia and the Allies could have done without them but couldn't have done without Russia.
But that didn't happen did it so what is your point?
If you would drop your anti-USA views for a momment, and I will repeat you do a great disservice to all allied veterns with your views, you would realise it took a combined effort on all fronts to defeat the axis powers not just one nation.
When will you admit to this?

[Oriellien]

Russia would not have won WWII by itself, even in wonderland. Obviously the rest of the allies wouldnt have won without Russia, but Russia wouldnt have won without them either.

Also, I never said the US won WWII by itself, I never said Russia didnt do anything, what I said was the US did something too. You embarked on that patriotic rampage on your own. Edit: It was my post you quoted so im assuming you think I said the US won WWII.

[Vladimir80]

Vladimir,

T-34 was not superior to German tanks, the Soviets lost tens of thousands of them in combat. The T-34 enjoyed a period of domiance from June 1941 to about March 1942 when German 75mm and longer barreled 50 mm guns. After that point the T-34 had some advantages speed- ground pressure, and NUMBERS, but German tanks had thier own advantages- better guns, radios, better trained crews etc. The same applies to the Sherman 76's some advantages some disadvantages.

T-34 was the superior mass production tank which is the comparison to Sherman which is made. For every Tiger produced we could pump out a dozen T-34s. When the Germans came up with their new tanks we added 85mm gun to take them out. The T-34 was the tank that won the war... not the Sherman.


Durig WW2 America had 11 million men in arms plus an extensive merchant Marine. In termsn of manpower in actual combat only the USSR had more.

Your comparing Merchant Marine to Red Army... of course you would. :roflmao3:


In North Africa, Rommel's single attempt at defeatign "green" unblooded Ameircan forces failed.

Rommel lost because of British contributions... not much to do with Americans.


In the west the armor battles of the Normandy campaign actually involved more German armor (over the leangth of the campaign) than at Kursk. Some of these units have gone down in history as some of the greatest fightign formations of all time- Panzer Lehr, 12th SS (Hitlerjugend) Panzer Div, 1st Panzer Divsion, 1st SS (Liebanstarte Adolf Hitler) Pnzer Divsion, and the famed Tiger tank ace Whittman. At the same time these storied units were dying in France the massive Russian assualt called bagration was unleashed. How would the Russian advance have faired if these extra tanks had been availabe in the East, of if the Luftwaffe's planes had not died in the massive air battles over Germany?


The small garisson left in France was NOTHING compared to what was thrown on the Eastern Front. You are comparing Oscar Delahoya to Mike Tyson... :no1:



Did the US do most of the ground fighting? of course not, but it did do most of the air and sea fighting, provided the bulk of the men to the allied cause in the west, and provided the bulk of the supplies. You cannot fight a war on an empty stomach, you cannot fight a mechanized war without trucks. Without American supplies the manpower of the USSR would never have had the tools it needed to push the invader back.

We didn't recieve as many supplies as you think, half of it went to the bottom by U boats because they wouldn't protect the convoys.


BTW Vlad, this debae isn't about who did the msot fighting, but who contributed the most to victory. And my knowledge of histry is superior to you and your Anti-American Russo-centric view.

Just another racist example of your arrogant attitude...


It's rather funny to watch you claim the USSR beat Japan. The Manchuko army was a ghost of its former self. It was starved for fuel, had not recived modern munitions, its best divisions had been transffered to the pacific, and the IJAAF had been stripped of planes and pilots for the failed effort to secure New Guinea on the belief that the American and Austrailian goal was the Dutch East Indies.

The Manchuko army was no match for the Red Army, it never was. It still had plenty of men, equipment, logistics and supplies. So much so that the US never entered Manchuria because they couldn't even deal with it so they beg Stalin to do it for them.


The Emperor had already started the ball rolling looking for a peace solution when Tojo was forced outin July of 1944. By then Japan had already lost and it was simply a matter of time until the American's forced Japan back. The First allied orces to take histoically Japanese territroy was the USMC who secured Okinawa (a prefecture of Japan itself) by June 1945 that is secured a full 2 months ahead of August Storm.

While your little island hopping campaign was cute and all it really was nothing compared to what we was doing everyday. You was wasting your men fighting for some worthless islands... really it was stupid.

The USSR did a lot of the fighting, and they did most of the dying, but they didn't come anywhere close to all of the fighting. Fightign 60-70% of the Wermacht is an imporessive feat, but that missing % plus the bulk of the Luftwaffe and the massive armoy of men and 88mm guns stuck on air defense duty cannot be discounted. Betwen the force sin Normandy, Italy, and over the skies of the Reich the amount of German manpower faced by the Western allies climbs quite a bit compared to just army vs army.

But you knew that and chose to lie by ommision anyway.

It wasn't about Western allies... it was about US ally and their lack of participation. The only ommission made was the laugh at the ignorance exhibited.

Ohh BTW my college is the University of Central Arkansas where I am a member of the UCA Honors College which was recognized by the Carnegie foundation as one of the best of its kind in America.

Never heard of it... let me check and see if it is ranked... NOPE! :sorry3:

[Zraver]

T-34 was the superior mass production tank which is the comparison to Sherman which is made. For every Tiger produced we could pump out a dozen T-34s. When the Germans came up with their new tanks we added 85mm gun to take them out. The T-34 was the tank that won the war... not the Sherman. [quote]

Wasn't aware that T-34's liberated France, Italy, the low countries, North Africa, Greece, or parts of the Reich. In fact I could swear that those natiosn were freed by Shermans.



[quote]
Your comparing Merchant Marine to Red Army... of course you would. :roflmao3:

No I said the US had 11 million men in uniform plus a merchant marine.


Rommel lost because of British contributions... not much to do with Americans.

Are you really that dense? What where the British using, where did the supplies come from and what about Operation Torch? The simple fact is until the American's began flooding the British with supplies and then backing them up physcally the much smaller Panzer Army Africa was able to attack and threaten the entire British posistion. Egypt was only saved multiple times because Rommel out ran his supplies.




The small garisson left in France was NOTHING compared to what was thrown on the Eastern Front. You are comparing Oscar Delahoya to Mike Tyson... :no1:

Really, this proves your ignorance. small force in France? Yes when compared to the entire Eastern theater the force apears small. But the units had a higher proportion of mechanized units and the troop density wasn't lower. the allies packed in 1.5 million men (80%+ American) and Germany committed 380,000 by the end of the first month and a half. Thats nearly 2 million men in a very small area.



We didn't recieve as many supplies as you think, half of it went to the bottom by U boats because they wouldn't protect the convoys.

Did you miss the posted list of supplies posted, half the supplies never faced a U-boat threat at all (reflagged American merchant marine vessels sailing to vladivostock). 4.5 million more tons went through Iran where the U-boat danger was low. Of the remaining 50% of supplies that had to come via the artic convoy route. Contray to yuor claims that half of them got sunk, only 85 mercant vessels were sunk out of 1400 involved. Total losses were 85 merchant vessels and 16 warships. And if as you claim the convoys were not protected how did 16 warships go down taking at least 30 U-boats with them?

As usal you either have no idea what your talking about or you lied. which is it?


Just another racist example of your arrogant attitude...
pointing out yuor uber-Russo-centric world view makes me a racist wow! How low can you stoop?


The Manchuko army was no match for the Red Army, it never was. It still had plenty of men, equipment, logistics and supplies. So much so that the US never entered Manchuria because they couldn't even deal with it so they beg Stalin to do it for them.

huh? How woud the US land troops in China and why would they land troops in China?




While your little island hopping campaign was cute and all it really was nothing compared to what we was doing everyday. You was wasting your men fighting for some worthless islands... really it was stupid.

Really it destroyed the IJN, gutted the best units of the IJA. But then it wasn't Russian so it was worthless and pointless.


It wasn't about Western allies... it was about US ally and their lack of participation. The only ommission made was the laugh at the ignorance exhibited.

America made the overwhelming majority of the western allies after December 41 and the western allies fought as an alliance and so cannot be easily seperated. American units were often suborniated to British Command to beef up thier fightign streangth.



Never heard of it... let me check and see if it is ranked... NOPE! :sorry3:

"An Ivy League education at a bargain basement price."

-- Dr. Terrel Bell, former Secretary of Education and U.S. Commissioner on Education

"One of the most widely imitated programs in the country."

-- Carnegie Foundation

[Kermanshah1]

Not entirely, the battle in North Africa had a direct bearing on keeping the Persian supply route to Russia open.[QUOTE]

Not at all. The Battle for Norht Africa was when Italy attacked Egypt. They got beaten and Germany send a small amounth of troops there to stop the British do a land invasion in Italy.




This is completely false, Rommel was flown out of North Africa so Hitler's faorite would not be forced to surrender, his deputy was left to do that. When the Axis surrendered 275,000 troops went into captivity after operation Retribution blocked the evacuation fleet. This is more troops than surrendered at Stalingrad.

Quite simply after the reversal agaisnt the Americans and the British defeat of the Mareth Line the Germans were doomed in North Africa. Rommel's problem was supplies not men. Allied air and sea power (often using Ameican supplied equipmnt and running on American supplied fuel, firign american supplied bullets) condcted the worlds first sucessfully air and sea blockade.


At the beginning he was succesfull. The britsh were advancing quickly when he came and they all were forced to retreat. He beat them everywere xcept for Tibruk. Because of Tibruk he couldn't advandce further and eventually the Brits invaded some of Libya. But then Rommel beat them took Tibruk and advanced further than ever only eventually when they reaced el Alamijn the Brits had so much more thatn he had of everything that eventhough the Germans were so much better they couldn't have won. Those 275,000 surrendered in the end because they couldn't win anyway they saw no point in fighting further, by this point the Africa corps had already lost.


In the east the amount of forces Gemrany could commit was limited by rail capacity, in North Africa it was surface tonnage. In neither case did Germany have enough transport to commit its total force anywhere.


70/80% of their forces fought in the East together with: the Bulgarian army, the Hungarian army, the Romanian army, the Slovakian army, the Italian army, the Finsh army, volunteers from occupied nations and the blue division from Spain and Portugal. If this had all been send to Africa victory would be theirs.


With its colonial troops tied up fighting the Japanese after Dec 1941 the British could not have launched D-Day without America. By 1944 the Britsh Army was shrinking as units were disbanded to provide re-inforcements.


Withouth America the Brits would have lost in Asia but still the Germans would have been beaten.


Without the threat of D-Day the Russian's would ahve faced major problems. The amount of concrete, land mines, men, tanks, guns, and aircraft require dto guard agaisnt the expeced invasion and the air battles over the Reich paved the way for the Russian advances. Becuase Russia lacked an effective interddiction campaign other than partisan bands as the German army fell back its effective rail capacity increased so the material in the west could have been used defnesively in the East. This would have been enough to keep the Red Army in check. Germany was effectively fighting a 4 front war France, Italy, Air, East. Without the drain of the three western fronts some 2 million men, thousands of AFV. thousands of 88mm guns, hundreds of fighters, millions of tons of concrete, 10's of millions land mines, at least 100 more trains Russia would ahve been stopped cold beofre liberating Poland or parts of European Russia/Ukraine


Nah it wouldn't have made any difference. By the time D-day had been launched Russia had already won. D-day was just to take western Europe.

]
Please show how lacking American material and facing the addition of the forces and material used in the West the Soviet's could have beaten Germany when by May 1945 they were out of men and industrial production plummetted as the factories were combed for men for the front. At the very least the men used in August Storm would not have been avaiable for the attack on the Japaneses and the USSR would ahve to have used the sub par far Eastern divsions which had not been upgraded durign the war and would have had to fight the Japanese without modern equipment or combat experiance.

By May 1945 they were not out of men. They had the largest army in the world. By May 1945 the Germans were defeated. Hitler comitted suicide, Berlin had fallen, their army was destroyed. the Russians would have had the west without needing to invade it.

[ThePuss]

While your little island hopping campaign was cute and all it really was nothing compared to what we was doing everyday. You was wasting your men fighting for some worthless islands... really it was stupid.

The fighting here between the USMC and the Japs was as brutal as any battle on the Eastern Front, at least Russia faced an enemy who would surrender. As for the campaign you need to take a strategic look at it, evey island taken was another airbase closer to the Japonese mainland. In the end how else do you get close enough to drop the A bomb or invade?
Also as a former military man I still do not see how you can you such much contempt for any allied war veterens.

[Vladimir80]

The fighting here between the USMC and the Japs was as brutal as any battle on the Eastern Front, at least Russia faced an enemy who would surrender. As for the campaign you need to take a strategic look at it, evey island taken was another airbase closer to the Japonese mainland. In the end how else do you get close enough to drop the A bomb or invade?

The USMC casaulty figures were nothing compared to one day on the Eastern Front. The war could have been ended much sooner if the Americans just went for the head rather than trying to work their way up the body.


Also as a former military man I still do not see how you can you such much contempt for any allied war veterens.

If you was a military man serving in the Cold War then you must have been asleep to ask how a Russian can have contempt for Americans claiming to be the major reason for winning WWII. I think as a UK man your sensibilities would be hurt by Zraver taking credit for winning North Africa when we know it was the British who made that possible.

[Kermanshah1]

The fighting here between the USMC and the Japs was as brutal as any battle on the Eastern Front, at least Russia faced an enemy who would surrender. As for the campaign you need to take a strategic look at it, evey island taken was another airbase closer to the Japonese mainland. In the end how else do you get close enough to drop the A bomb or invade?
Also as a former military man I still do not see how you can you such much contempt for any allied war veterens.

The Islands were worthless and they were a wast of time.

[Zraver]

Not entirely, the battle in North Africa had a direct bearing on keeping the Persian supply route to Russia open.



At the beginning he was succesfull. The britsh were advancing quickly when he came and they all were forced to retreat. He beat them everywere xcept for Tibruk. Because of Tibruk he couldn't advandce further and eventually the Brits invaded some of Libya. But then Rommel beat them took Tibruk and advanced further than ever only eventually when they reaced el Alamijn the Brits had so much more thatn he had of everything that eventhough the Germans were so much better they couldn't have won. Those 275,000 surrendered in the end because they couldn't win anyway they saw no point in fighting further, by this point the Africa corps had already lost.

Panzer Armee Afrika (it was no longer just a panzer corps) was defeated in Tunisa a long long way from the Lybian Egyptian border. The Germans were force dback beucase of the weight of American made material supplied to the 8th Army and then Operation Torch it was a combined effort.



70/80% of their forces fought in the East together with: the Bulgarian army, the Hungarian army, the Romanian army, the Slovakian army, the Italian army, the Finsh army, volunteers from occupied nations and the blue division from Spain and Portugal. If this had all been send to Africa victory would be theirs.

How would it get to Africa? Germany and Italy combined did not have enough surface tonnage to keep them supplied and the rail line from Gibraltar across North Africa was not big enough often only single spur.



Withouth America the Brits would have lost in Asia but still the Germans would have been beaten.

Please qualify this statement. Germany had higher steel production than both nations (UK/USSR) combined, nearly as many men in the feild, secure oil supplies etc. The entry of America changed the course of the war.



Nah it wouldn't have made any difference. By the time D-day had been launched Russia had already won. D-day was just to take western Europe.

No No No No, Germany transferred several crack divsions out of the east, diverted millions of tons of concrete and steel, tens of millions of land mines, and most of its fighter aircraft and thousands of 88mm guns had been diverted for Reich defense. These forces amy well ahve proved to be the differance between the death of Army Group Center and a sucessful German defense in the east

From Feldgrau.com http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

Wermacht 1944 12 million
Luftwaffe 1944 1.5 million
Kriegsmarine 1944 1.5 million
Waffen SS 1944 .6 million
total 15.6 million

Losses in the East (41 through 11/44)
KIA 1,419,728
MIA/POW 997,056
WIA 3,498,060
Total= 5,914,844 causalties

Losses in the west (North Afrika, Norway, Greece, Home Front, France, Italy trhough 11/44)
KIA 263,183
MIA 533,445
WIA 677,234 (does not include figures for home front, Low Countries, Balkans 41, or North Afrika)
Kreigsmarine all types 39/45 197,287
Total= 1,671,149

at 28.25% of all German losses occured in the West or verses the Western Allies. With large figures missing from the WIA rolls and if everythign else transfers then roughly a third of Germany's entire military might was tied up vs the West. Any way you cut it that is a very signifigant percentage and if avaialbe in the east would have stopped the Russians cold.



By May 1945 they were not out of men. They had the largest army in the world. By May 1945 the Germans were defeated. Hitler comitted suicide, Berlin had fallen, their army was destroyed. the Russians would have had the west without needing to invade it.

They were out of men, the USSR suffered 27 million causalties 910.6 million military) out of a population of 197 million thats more than 13% losses. Thats devestating thats almost an entire generation. They had the largest amry in the world but it was all but out of replacements there were no more untapped reserves. If the war had been extended another year or two byt the additon of the forces in the west to the German OOB the Red Army would have begun to shrink and do so rapidly.

[Zraver]

I think as a UK man your sensibilities would be hurt by Zraver taking credit for winning North Africa when we know it was the British who made that possible.

I said America made victory possible stop twistign my words.

[Kermanshah1]

They were out of men, the USSR suffered 27 million causalties 910.6 million military) out of a population of 197 million thats more than 13% losses. Thats devestating thats almost an entire generation. They had the largest amry in the world but it was all but out of replacements there were no more untapped reserves. If the war had been extended another year or two byt the additon of the forces in the west to the German OOB the Red Army would have begun to shrink and do so rapidly.

They would have reached Berlin no matter what adn that was all they needed to do. After Berlin was taken the Germans were defeated. The Russians would have reached the rein and might have even passed it if the Germasn had decided to fight the west but in the end the Germans decided to stop fighting the west and only fight the east and still the Russians beat them.

[Zraver]

2/3 of Germanies military (roughly 7-11 million) might killed 27 million Soviet losses. Adding 1/3 to the German number (no America in WW2)would add more than 1/3 to the causalty total as the Soviets equipment, food, and fuel already never enough just from domestic production would ahve been spread even thinner becuase of greater numbers and no lend lease and German mobile reserves would have been more common. Soviet military causalties might well ahve increased by 50% or more and might have doubled. No nation anyhwere at anytime can absorb 10% of its total population in the battle deaths of its breeding age males.

[Vladimir80]

Wasn't aware that T-34's liberated France, Italy, the low countries, North Africa, Greece, or parts of the Reich. In fact I could swear that those natiosn were freed by Shermans.

They did by taking on 80% of German armor on the Eastern Front.

No I said the US had 11 million men in uniform plus a merchant marine.

... and compared them to Red Army soldiers. :huh2:


Egypt was only saved multiple times because Rommel out ran his supplies.

This was thanks to BRITISH breaking of enigma... nothing to do with US.

I said America made victory possible stop twistign my words.

Stop taking credit for others success, everyone knows it was breaking of enigma that annihilated Rommels supply line and it was British doing it.


Really, this proves your ignorance. small force in France? Yes when compared to the entire Eastern theater the force apears small.

Proves your ignorance by contradicting your own statement.

Did you miss the posted list of supplies posted, half the supplies never faced a U-boat threat at all (reflagged American merchant marine vessels sailing to vladivostock).

No... they just faced the Japanese threat. They sunk reflagged ships all the time. The point is we didn't recieve all of the goods listed. Lend lease was originally a way for the US to stay out of the war so we know what the intentions were.



pointing out yuor uber-Russo-centric world view makes me a racist wow! How low can you stoop?

No... claiming to be superior to me because of my Russian views makes you racist.


huh? How woud the US land troops in China and why would they land troops in China?

There was plenty of ways to get troops to China. The US left them to be slaughtered by Japanese troops by not given them the priority they should have been given. If the troops used in the island hopping campaign had been filtered to China the US could have had inexhaustable manpower and an easy way to defeat Imperial Japan.



Really it destroyed the IJN, gutted the best units of the IJA. But then it wasn't Russian so it was worthless and pointless.

The best units of the IJA were not on those islands... they didn't get many tanks over there did they. The IJN could have been taken on anywhere. It would have been better to do it at PEARL HARBOR! Any idiot could have seen it coming.


"An Ivy League education at a bargain basement price."

-- Dr. Terrel Bell, former Secretary of Education and U.S. Commissioner on Education

"One of the most widely imitated programs in the country."

-- Carnegie Foundation

Let's see what the Princeton Review ranks UCA in the best 361 colleges... NOTHING.

Ivy League my arse...

[ThePuss]

The USMC casaulty figures were nothing compared to one day on the Eastern Front. The war could have been ended much sooner if the Americans just went for the head rather than trying to work their way up the body.
As two theatres of operation you cannot compare the Eastern and Pacific fronts. It is much easier in terms of strategy and supply for Russia to target Berlin as its objective as it is all land in between the objective.
In the Pacific, and to a certain extent the Western front, you have a large expanse of water to cross first before you can meet the enemy. That means you have to build the ships to get you there, land you there and protect you whilst you are there. Kermanshah1 says the islands were worthless but that is wrong. Each island you take becomes a supply base and as you go you build up a chain of supply bases and airbases for air support for your next invasion. Each island takes you nearer and nearer Tokyo, any way would you really leave an occupied Japanese island in your rear? Once the US get to Okinawa they have the perfect place to bomb Japan from and build up an invasion force. Also you can’t get close enough to Japan by going through SE Asia so the island hopping campaign was really the only viable way.
I agree many more were lost on the Eastern front but that was probably down more to tactics than the quality of enemy faced. I would rate the Germans and Japanese and equals when it comes to fighting men though will their no surrender policy maybe the Japanese just edge it.


If you was a military man serving in the Cold War then you must have been asleep to ask how a Russian can have contempt for Americans claiming to be the major reason for winning WWII. I think as a UK man your sensibilities would be hurt by Zraver taking credit for winning North Africa when we know it was the British who made that possible
I grew up during the cold war, which is why another nuclear armed country worries me, but I don’t dislike Russians because of it. Problem you and him have is that you are patriots and therefore believe that anything your country does is the best out there. Nothing wrong with that per se but it does tend to lead to an unbalance view. You are arguing about the merits of the T34 and the M4 trying to prove yours is the best. All I would say to that is if you took a step back you would see advantages and disadvantages in both and by the end it is hard to pick a winner.
I am a realist and recognise that the allied victory was a combined effort, any American or Russian saying otherwise is talking out their somewhere. In North Africa the Brits were very grateful for the M3 Grants that the US supplied, it gave us the first tank that could fire HE rounds as well as AP. Some to an extent he is right, the US did aid the British victory there but a combined victory.

[Vladimir80]

As two theatres of operation you cannot compare the Eastern and Pacific fronts. It is much easier in terms of strategy and supply for Russia to target Berlin as its objective as it is all land in between the objective.

The source of Japanese industrial might was Manchuria... with the loss of the Manchuko holdings they were forced to surrender. If the US had focused their strategy to support Chinese rather than wasting it island hopping you would have witnessed and much quicker and less bloody campaign.


I grew up during the cold war, which is why another nuclear armed country worries me, but I don’t dislike Russians because of it.

It is hard to take that with anything but a grain of salt considering the subordinate postion the British always take when under the heels of the US.

[ThePuss]

The source of Japanese industrial might was Manchuria... with the loss of the Manchuko holdings they were forced to surrender. If the US had focused their strategy to support Chinese rather than wasting it island hopping you would have witnessed and much quicker and less bloody campaign.

At some point the Allies need to put boots on the ground so where does the campaign start?
It is hard to take that with anything but a grain of salt considering the subordinate postion the British always take when under the heels of the US.
Is there a reason I should hate Russians?
Showing slight signs of paranoia there.
Governments like that it stops the citizens blaming them whilst blaming the outsiders.
As to the UK-US relationship, well we use the same language, our interests seem to be the same and we did once own them after all.

[Vladimir80]

Is there a reason I should hate Russians?

Is there a reason you are expelling our diplomats?

Showing slight signs of paranoia there.

Exactly what your people are doing...



As to the UK-US relationship, well we use the same language, our interests seem to be the same and we did once own them after all.

It appears you have gone from being the owner to owned.

[ThePuss]

Is there a reason you are expelling our diplomats?

We have indentified a suspected murderer who polluted our enviroment and may have caused future deaths just to silence a government critic. Our legal system would like to give him his day in court. There would appear to be a reluctance on the part of your government to allow this to happen. I know, I know it is in the constitution, wonder why that was put their in the first place. While we are at it why is London suddenly the capital of choice for Russians to conduct their turf wars? See we kicked another hitman out last week, this one also brought his son along for the ride. Interesting age to enter that trade.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6905271.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6904066.stm

It appears you have gone from being the owner to owned.
Let the new PM settle in and we will see where things go. We have always acted as a useful buffer between the US and Europe and vice versa.

[Kermanshah1]

2/3 of Germanies military (roughly 7-11 million) might killed 27 million Soviet losses. Adding 1/3 to the German number (no America in WW2)would add more than 1/3 to the causalty total as the Soviets equipment, food, and fuel already never enough just from domestic production would ahve been spread even thinner becuase of greater numbers and no lend lease and German mobile reserves would have been more common. Soviet military causalties might well ahve increased by 50% or more and might have doubled. No nation anyhwere at anytime can absorb 10% of its total population in the battle deaths of its breeding age males.

There is no way the Germans could have send all those forces to the East. Who is gonna fight in North-Afrika then? Who is gonna defend the West then? Who is gonna stop the British invade? The Germans send all they could and they were beaten. When the Germans attacked the Soviet Union there was no western front yet.

[Zraver]

Vlad

They did by taking on 80% of German armor on the Eastern Front.

Why are you sp ready to give ancillary effects to the T-34 and Red Army but not the US efforts? Those T-34's wpuld not have gone very far witout American supplies. Your biased as usal.

and compared them to Red Army soldiers.

I daresay the brave souls in the Merchant Marine didn't have it easy, unlike a soldier they couldn't shoot back and they were all volunteers. Like the bobmer crews they had an effect far larger than mere numbers would indicate.

This was thanks to BRITISH breaking of enigma... nothing to do with US.

Really? Where did the planes, guns, and fuel used to slaughter the Axis supply feriers come from? Reading the other guys mail is all well and good, but if you don't have the assets to make use of the information its worthless.

Proves your ignorance by contradicting your own statement.

The troops in the west had the same troop density or greater, more armor, better defensive terrain, and shorter supply lines.


No... they just faced the Japanese threat. They sunk reflagged ships all the time. The point is we didn't recieve all of the goods listed. Lend lease was originally a way for the US to stay out of the war so we know what the intentions were.

Do you have any proof at all that the reflagged vessels were sunk? Or is this just another Vladimir lie? Like your claim that half the supplies were sunk. Since only 7% of the Murmansk bound vessels were sunk that means yuor claiming that between Iran and Vladivostock 43% of all the cargoes shipped were lost- YOUR A LIAR.

If the US Govemrent wanted to stay out of the Europe's War then why send supplies or commit the USN to defending the convoys west of Iceland before the ballon went up? It wasn't our war, we dodn't cause it , start it, or have a horse in it.

No... claiming to be superior to me because of my Russian views makes you racist.

I am superior to you beucase your an idiot and a liar, not beucase your Russian. (see below)

There was plenty of ways to get troops to China. The US left them to be slaughtered by Japanese troops by not given them the priority they should have been given. If the troops used in the island hopping campaign had been filtered to China the US could have had inexhaustable manpower and an easy way to defeat Imperial Japan.

1- How the only available route was to fly over the "Hump" technology of the day did not allow people to fly tanks in planes, as it was the air corridor known as the Hump was already crowded and during the war hundreds of aircraft crashed (486 US, 43 Chinese) along its 800 km route. The losses to crashes sometimes reached 50% but the piltos kept on flying dleeivering 650,000 tons of supplies by air and reaching a monthyl deleivery rate of 7000 tons. It was the largest airlif tin history until the Berlin Airlift. In Berline the commander was William H Turner the same man who ran the Hump.

2- What other access to china existed for the US to ship troops and supplies to China so they could strike at Manchuko? Soviet Russia sure didn't want US troops traveling its territory.

Really your claim is so baseless, but as usal you'll either stick to it inspite of the face of the evidence or suddenly change the subject when confronted.

Let's see what the Princeton Review ranks UCA in the best 361 colleges... NOTHING.

Ivy League my arse...

Would you happen to have a link rating Honors colleges? Until then stick it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCA_Honors_College

[Vladimir80]

We have indentified a suspected murderer who polluted our enviroment and may have caused future deaths just to silence a government critic. Our legal system would like to give him his day in court. There would appear to be a reluctance on the part of your government to allow this to happen. I know, I know it is in the constitution, wonder why that was put their in the first place. While we are at it why is London suddenly the capital of choice for Russians to conduct their turf wars? See we kicked another hitman out last week, this one also brought his son along for the ride. Interesting age to enter that trade.

Believe it or not Russians like traveling to Britain. I know I did considering I recieved part of my education there. The Russian "royalty" drop billions in London alone. As far as the assasination attempts it is no secret of our extradition laws. It is not like we are trying to screw you out of justice... it is for our own citizens protection from unfair prosecution. To expel our diplomats over this is insane and Russophobic. Your people is playing with fire... I hope you don't take it too far.


Let the new PM settle in and we will see where things go. We have always acted as a useful buffer between the US and Europe and vice versa.

If NATO was disbanded tommorow over EU differences and they demanded that UK decide with who they would align themselves with who do you think they would pick... EU or USA?

[Oriellien]

I still maintain my point that that the allies wouldnt have won WWII without either the US or Russia.

[Vladimir80]

I still maintain my point that that the allies wouldnt have won WWII without either the US or Russia.

The lend lease contribution of the US was not without their own demands. We gave US submarines access to Soviet Far East bases so they could conduct their patrols. The Japanese attacked Soviet shipping in response sending many men to their graves. Soviet aid to the Chinese and Mongolian forces was just as important to the US war effort against Japan. If the US had taken advantage of China they would have been succesfull far earlier.

Would you happen to have a link rating Honors colleges? Until then stick it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCA_Honors_College

Rankings and other listings... none

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/generalinfo.asp?listing=1022879&LTID=1

Some backwater school that is not even recognized in the top half of US higher education. :sorry3:

[Zraver]

How about that proof japanese targeted Soviet flagged merchantmen.

[Vladimir80]

How about that proof japanese targeted Soviet flagged merchantmen.

"The Japanese Foreign Office sent a note to Moscow questioning wether the American supplies were being shipped to Vladivostok and being converted into America's first line of defense against Japan. This can be construed as an act of war that Japan will not tolerate... recent losses in the Far East to Japanese attack make the current situation tense."

Information Bulletin, Embassy of the C.C.C.P., April 14, 1942 reported by Pravda

[Zraver]

Statistics
Enrollment: 10,137
Average GPA: 3.30
Student Faculty Ratio: 19:1
Most Popular Majors: General Studies, Health Professions and Related Sciences, Other, Nursing - Registered Nurse Training (RN, ASN, BSN, MSN)
Regular Application Deadline: Rolling
More: General Info, Admissions, Student Body, Academics, Campus Life, Extracurriculars, Learning Disabled

hrmmm 3.30 gpa with a national average of 2.87 for public universities. Ya real slacker school. The problem with rankings is that none of them are ever comphrehensive and tend to cater to more well known schools. UCA was under 6K student regional university until just a couple years ago. It has since doubled it's enrollement (now getting more freshman than the Univ Arkansas) and still managed to keep a GPA that is not only signifigantly higher than the average for public schools but is also higher than the reported GPA for private schools. Few schools expcet the Ivy league can boast a student body that averages A's and B's. Let me repeat averages A's and B's for the entire student body. Now the Honors College Program inflates this a bit, a collection of braniacs can skew the curve. But this is off set by the UC program that takes in many of Arkansas under-performing left behinds in a desperate attempt to equip them for the future.

I have provided statements by experts, and UCA is also the new home of the Oxford American magazine, and may be hosting a Presidential debate ,where as an Honors College Student, that I will be attending. Give Lu Hardin and UCA a few years to finish growing and it will ranked.

[Zraver]

"The Japanese Foreign Office sent a note to Moscow questioning wether the American supplies were being shipped to Vladivostok and being converted into America's first line of defense against Japan. This can be construed as an act of war that Japan will not tolerate... recent losses in the Far East to Japanese attack make the current situation tense."

Information Bulletin, Embassy of the C.C.C.P., April 14, 1942 reported by Pravda

I want proof that Soviet flagged merchantmen were sunk. The diplomatic message was quite clear- Was America building up forces in the USSR to attack Japan instead of being used agaisnt Germany.

[Vladimir80]

In regards to shipping has already been posted... please read before you post nonsense.

"...recent losses in the Far East to Japanese attack make the current situation tense."

[Vladimir80]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Iranian Navy or something like that.

I advise you guys to delete some posts and get back on track before Janbaz sees this.

How about merging it into an appropriate thread rather than deletion.

[Vladimir80]

Read the whole last page, you will see.

See what???

[Vladimir80]

I think he may be cool with that. It is not my forum but I think he may lock the thread or possibly give infractions. I am just advising you guys.

I'm not going to get banned for defending Russia against this fool... I'm done here.

[ironbar]

isnt this thread about the iranian navy anyways and not the pitiful, rusty, harbor bound, leaky russian navy?

[Vladimir80]

Naval Capabilities in the Caspian

The Iranian Navy in the Caspian Sea is represented by two commands independent of one another: the Naval Armed Forces Command in the Caspian Sea Zone (4th Naval Region, with naval base at Anzali) and the Naval Corps Guards Command of the Islamic Revolution in the Caspian Sea Zone (coastal defence battalion at the port of Nowshahr). Training centres of the Naval Armed Forces are functioning in the ports of Nowsharh and Anzali, as well as in Rasht. A school for Iranian combat divers is also located in the Caspian area. The Imam Khomeini Navy Academy is located at Nowshahr.

The Iranian Navy has about 90 small combat vessels and auxiliary craft operating in all the Caspian. It is believed that these include three very small submarines of Iranian construction (the DPRK variety that can take on board a team of combat divers and explosives specialists and is capable of covering a distance of 1,900 miles with use of a snorkel), the antiquated coastal minesweeper Salman (of US construction, 'Bluebird' class), the government yacht Khamze, patrol craft, and speed boats with armament. Iran is capable of sharply increasing its group of ships in the Caspian in a short time frame, by transferring cutters from the Persian Gulf (including four hovercraft).

The Naval Armed Forces Command has announced its intention to deploy new naval assets in the Caspian Sea. The Iranians may use small, fast-moving (46 kt) patrol boats of the 'Boghammar' class in the Caspian's coastal regions. These craft are outfitted with large-calibre machine guns, recoilless weapons, and 107 mm 12-barrel rocket launchers. The crews of these patrol boats are also armed with shoulder-fired anti-tank rocket launchers and portable anti-aircraft missile systems.

2007 Jane's Information Group

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Naval Capabilities in the Caspian

The Iranian Navy in the Caspian Sea is represented by two commands independent of one another: the Naval Armed Forces Command in the Caspian Sea Zone (4th Naval Region, with naval base at Anzali) and the Naval Corps Guards Command of the Islamic Revolution in the Caspian Sea Zone (coastal defence battalion at the port of Nowshahr). Training centres of the Naval Armed Forces are functioning in the ports of Nowsharh and Anzali, as well as in Rasht. A school for Iranian combat divers is also located in the Caspian area. The Imam Khomeini Navy Academy is located at Nowshahr.

The Iranian Navy has about 90 small combat vessels and auxiliary craft operating in all the Caspian. It is believed that these include three very small submarines of Iranian construction (the DPRK variety that can take on board a team of combat divers and explosives specialists and is capable of covering a distance of 1,900 miles with use of a snorkel), the antiquated coastal minesweeper Salman (of US construction, 'Bluebird' class), the government yacht Khamze, patrol craft, and speed boats with armament. Iran is capable of sharply increasing its group of ships in the Caspian in a short time frame, by transferring cutters from the Persian Gulf (including four hovercraft).

The Naval Armed Forces Command has announced its intention to deploy new naval assets in the Caspian Sea. The Iranians may use small, fast-moving (46 kt) patrol boats of the 'Boghammar' class in the Caspian's coastal regions. These craft are outfitted with large-calibre machine guns, recoilless weapons, and 107 mm 12-barrel rocket launchers. The crews of these patrol boats are also armed with shoulder-fired anti-tank rocket launchers and portable anti-aircraft missile systems.

2007 Jane's Information Group

I think that is all that is needed for that body of water. Sufficient for patrolling borders.

[Vladimir80]

I think that is all that is needed for that body of water. Sufficient for patrolling borders.

Does Iran see Russian buildup on Caspian as threat?

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Does Iran see Russian buildup on Caspian as threat?

Well the Iranian waters are not unprotected and the build up counters US measures to get a base in Azerbaijan.

[Oriellien]

The lend lease contribution of the US was not without their own demands. We gave US submarines access to Soviet Far East bases so they could conduct their patrols. The Japanese attacked Soviet shipping in response sending many men to their graves. Soviet aid to the Chinese and Mongolian forces was just as important to the US war effort against Japan. If the US had taken advantage of China they would have been succesfull far earlier.





I know the US wasnt the main contributor in WWII, but it had its role just like Russia had its. While mabye they could have been more useful as you say in China, all the living and dead, Russia or American, Japanese, German, Italian, Chinese, on and on, gave their sacrifices to the war and should all be remembered.

[Kermanshah1]

I know the US wasnt the main contributor in WWII, but it had its role just like Russia had its. While mabye they could have been more useful as you say in China, all the living and dead, Russia or American, Japanese, German, Italian, Chinese, on and on, gave their sacrifices to the war and should all be remembered.

No they just let other people die for them and then claim credit.

[Kiaar]

No they just let other people die for them and then claim credit.

So you're telling me the Japanese defeated themselves and the Brits were the only ones fighting Germany in the west? I mean, we all know the British were the only ones who participated in D-Day, Market Garden, the liberation of France, and were the only one's with fighters and bombers over Germany.

Interesting historical perspective.

[Kermanshah1]

So you're telling me the Japanese defeated themselves[QUOTE]

You nuked them.

[QUOTE
And the Brits were the only ones fighting Germany in the west? I mean, we all know the British were the only ones who participated in D-Day, Market Garden, the liberation of France, and were the only one's with fighters and bombers over Germany.

Interesting historical perspective.

No but they did do the fighting in North Afrika.

[Kiaar]

[QUOTE=Kiaar;211573]So you're telling me the Japanese defeated themselves

No but they did do the fighting in North Afrika.

Did I claim otherwise...?

US troops fought in North Africa as well, but no one is denying that the Brits did the majority of the fighting there.

[Kermanshah1]

[QUOTE=Kermanshah1;211580]

Did I claim otherwise...?

US troops fought in North Africa as well, but no one is denying that the Brits did the majority of the fighting there.

And the Russians did the major fighting in Europe.

[Kiaar]

[QUOTE=Kiaar;211646]

And the Russians did the major fighting in Europe.

The Russians did most of the fighting in eastern Europe, where they were attacked and had a straight line to Berlin once they stalled and eventually defeated the German assault.

The Americans and Brits did most of the fighting in Western Europe, where they liberated Italy, France, Belgium, and a couple others.

[Kermanshah1]

[QUOTE=Kermanshah1;211670]

The Russians did most of the fighting in eastern Europe, where they were attacked and had a straight line to Berlin once they stalled and eventually defeated the German assault.

The Americans and Brits did most of the fighting in Western Europe, where they liberated Italy, France, Belgium, and a couple others.

Italy was a member of the Axis, they didn't liberate them but they defeated them but I think that was more a part of the southern front were the brits did the most. France ok, Belguim ok but Netherlands wasn't freed by the Americans, the east was freed by the British, the North by the Canadians adn the west wasn't freed, the Germans held on to it till the end. But the Russians kicked them out of West Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics, Poland, Czechia and they beat the Finsh, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Slovakians and they invaded eastern Austria and east Germany including actually taking Berlin.

[Vladimir80]

The Americans and Brits did most of the fighting in Western Europe, where they liberated Italy, France, Belgium, and a couple others.

US casualties 200,000+

Russian casualties 20,000,000 +

Don't insult our intelligence...

[Kiaar]

US casualties 200,000+

Russian casualties 20,000,000 million +

Don't insult our intelligence...

That's also because the US nor British mainland was ever attacked (except bombing raids over English cities) and they didn't use human wave tactics like the Russians did early on in the war.

It also didn't help that because of poor planning, Russia was totally unprepared for an attack. For some reason I can't remember, they had pushed up their units in front of their more heavily entrenched defensive lines and made them very vulnerable to the attacking German armies.

The Russian casualties being so high is also in large part due to Stalins massive incompetence and failure to prepare for an obvious German attack.
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/barbarossa.htm

It also didn't help that because of Stalin, officers feared doing anything without orders which certainly didn't help in coordinating any type of reasonable defense.

This changed later on, but massive damage had already been done.

Of those 20 or so, over half were also civilians, probably killed during bombing runs and from artillery on cities, or caught in a crossfire. Though I imagine a lot probably starved as well, especially since the Russians started to burn the land whenever they were forced to retreat further inland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

On another note, if you want to talk percentages, Russia didn't actually lose the most people vs. total population. Poland wins that one.

I'm not attempting to say that the Russians didn't play an important role, but citing huge casualty numbers doesn't support your point when a lot of those casualties were caused by massive incompetence in Russian leadership in the early part of the German invasion.

[Kiaar]

Italy was a member of the Axis, they didn't liberate them but they defeated them but I think that was more a part of the southern front were the brits did the most. France ok, Belguim ok but Netherlands wasn't freed by the Americans, the east was freed by the British, the North by the Canadians adn the west wasn't freed, the Germans held on to it till the end. But the Russians kicked them out of West Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics, Poland, Czechia and they beat the Finsh, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Slovakians and they invaded eastern Austria and east Germany including actually taking Berlin.

You're thinking of the East. The West was out of German hands long before Berlin fell. You're right about Italy also, the term liberate wasn't the right one there.

As far as what the Brits and Canadians did, I never said the US did it all. I said the US and Brits, and generally the Canadians are grouped with the British when talking about WWII.

[Vladimir80]

CCCP defeated the field armies of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan in some of the most studied tank battles of history. I don't see nothing so glorious that the Americans faced.

[Kiaar]

CCCP defeated the field armies of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan in some of the most studied tank battles of history. I don't see nothing so glorious that the Americans faced.

That's because unlike Russia, the US didn't have wide stretches of land that it needed to cross. The Japanese had very little armor in the Pacific, and even getting to Germany it had an entire ocean to cross.

It made more sense for Germany to send those tanks to the eastern front where they had to travel farther and move faster. Having more tanks attacking Russia, and the fact that Russia didn't have to transport supplies half way around the world, certainly set them up more for tank battles.

I could just as easily bring up that the US and England did almost all of the Naval fighting. This makes sense, because both of them had to cross bodies of water to fight, especially the US, whereas Russia does not.

After doing some research into it, it looks like the Russian navy at the time was used primarily for defense, mostly as convoy escorts and for AA defense. Most of their ships also seem to be of destroyer size or smaller, and a few hundred submarines that mostly operated in the Baltic.

[Vladimir80]

Unlike Russia, America never had to face a full invasion that gutted her resources and pushed it to the brink. Only to come back and conquer Berlin and Manchuko army. Americans got to sit next to their radios and listen to what was going on rather than face the hardships that was caused by Facism.

[Kiaar]

Unlike Russia, America never had to face a full invasion that gutted her resources and pushed it to the brink. Only to come back and conquer Berlin and Manchuko army.

I know. That's why I even said in an above reply that the US was never invaded, which was a reason for lower casualties.

[bbk1386]

ahem ahem (caughing) topic is iranian naval power not iranian naval power in WWWII which still would be unrelated (jk)

[Kermanshah1]

ahem ahem (caughing) topic is iranian naval power not iranian naval power in WWWII which still would be unrelated (jk)

But Zraver claims the US saived the USSR from the Nazi's.

[Xenostrike 06]

But Zraver claims the US saived the USSR from the Nazi's.

which deflected our Topics...about Iranian Naval Power in this year

Is Iran interested in Obtaining Russian KLUB Antiship Missile ?

[@@@@@!]

What's more Important for the Iranian Navy ?

1- Submarines , Diesel and Nuclear
2- Naval Fighter and long range Bomber
3- Surface vessels with SAM
3- Coastal SAM
4-Coastal AS Artillery
5- Supersonic SSM

[@@@@@!]

which deflected our Topics...about Iranian Naval Power in this year

Is Iran interested in Obtaining Russian KLUB Antiship Missile ?

iran has klub as well as a battery of shore based Yakhont ...

and soon iran will mass produce both of them...

[@@@@@!]

check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lva8YLW9UA&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCqxIcX5B4M&mode=related&search=

[Xenostrike 06]

iran has klub as well as a battery of shore based Yakhont ...

and soon iran will mass produce both of them...

Hmm..and how's Iran's Subs ,will KLUB Missiles equip them ?

[Zraver]

Is there any proof that Iran has the sunburn or club? They operate the project 877 version of the Kilo which is Soviet era technology and not equipped to mount these missiles.

Project 636 subs are longer and have a stepped conning tower. The older vessels do not carry the Klub-S and non of Iran's surface vessels are big enough for the Club-N.

I am also dubious that Iran has the SS-N-26. Most reputable international sources show Iran reling almsot exlcusively on Chinese technology for large anti-ship missiles.

[Kermanshah1]

What's more Important for the Iranian Navy ?

1- Submarines , Diesel and Nuclear
2- Naval Fighter and long range Bomber
3- Surface vessels with SAM
3- Coastal SAM
4-Coastal AS Artillery
5- Supersonic SSM

Iran needs Destroyers. With that I mean real Destroyers, the Alvand and Moudge class are frigates. Maybe they can buy a few? I'd prefer them buy new ones from a new class but they could also buy new vessels from an older calss (not to old please, wich means not older than 1990s). I hope they'd buy many, what about buying 6? But I doubt it and I think 3 is more realistic (or maybe 1:(). Anyway if this is really not possible due to the sanctions they should make some theimselfes, but I don't think they can.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Iran needs Destroyers. With that I mean real Destroyers, the Alvand and Moudge class are frigates. Maybe they can buy a few? I'd prefer them buy new ones from a new class but they could also buy new vessels from an older calss (not to old please, wich means not older than 1990s). I hope they'd buy many, what about buying 6? But I doubt it and I think 3 is more realistic (or maybe 1:(). Anyway if this is really not possible due to the sanctions they should make some theimselfes, but I don't think they can.

I don't think destroyers are a way to go. Asymmetrical is best. Since destroyers are an easy missile target for Iranian forces, destroyers are an easy target for US forces. Underwater fixmounted silo's, intelligent mines, micro subs...

[Kermanshah1]

I don't think destroyers are a way to go. Asymmetrical is best. Since destroyers are an easy missile target for Iranian forces, destroyers are an easy target for US forces. Underwater fixmounted silo's, intelligent mines, micro subs...

What about buying lada class Submarines.

[Zraver]

I don't think Russia will sell the Lada. With a the new cold war heating up Russia need to reconstatute thier naval forces quickly.

[Kermanshah1]

I don't think Russia will sell the Lada. With a the new cold war heating up Russia need to reconstatute thier naval forces quickly.

but they have to also arm their allies.

[Zraver]

but they have to also arm their allies.

Thats what surplus is for. Plus long term Russia only wants an Iran only strong enough to keep the US fixated, it does not want an Iran strong enough to threaten its re-aqusition of its former empire.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

What about buying lada class Submarines.

I think the size is good but they would need to be different internally. They would not need to be at sea long periods of time but they would need to have the ability to launch sizable missiles and torpedos.

They could also be used for electronic warfare when not far from surface.

[Vladimir80]

I don't think Russia will sell the Lada. With a the new cold war heating up Russia need to reconstatute thier naval forces quickly.

We will sell to whoever will buy... it means money and jobs.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_May_Export_Up_To_40_New_Diesel_Submarines_By_2015_999 .html

[Kermanshah1]

We will sell to whoever will buy... it means money and jobs.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_May_Export_Up_To_40_New_Diesel_Submarines_By_2015_999 .html

But Iran is sanctioned.

[Vladimir80]

But Iran is sanctioned.

Not on conventional weapons by Russia... only on nuclear materials and ballistic missile technologies.

[Kermanshah1]

Not on conventional weapons by Russia... only on nuclear materials and ballistic missile technologies.

Well that's good.

[Zraver]

Not on conventional weapons by Russia... only on nuclear materials and ballistic missile technologies.


Sine 95 Russia hs placed a moratorium on offensive weapons systesm sales to Iran. Current UN sanctions may block even those going by Iran's efforts to find a backdoor.

[Vladimir80]

Sine 95 Russia hs placed a moratorium on offensive weapons systesm sales to Iran.

I guess last years deliveries of Su-25s broke your imagined moratorium... :roflmao3:

Current UN sanctions may block even those going by Iran's efforts to find a backdoor.

Please show me where in the UN resolution it says Russia can't export conventional weapons to Iran.

[Xenostrike 06]

Hmm so Iran Could get Su-35BM,Yakhonts and KLUB Missiles

[Oriellien]

No they just let other people die for them and then claim credit.

More US soldiers died then British soldiers, that doesnt slash out what Britain did. And yes more Russians died then Americans, but that doesnt slash out what the rest of the allies did.

[Zraver]

I guess last years deliveries of Su-25s broke your imagined moratorium... :roflmao3:

the SU-25UBT is not exaclty an offensive platform. It is a shrt raned subsonic tactical support craft.



Please show me where in the UN resolution it says Russia can't export conventional weapons to Iran.


I said may, at the very least direct party to party sales have taken on a serious odor for Russia who seems (along with Iran) to be looking for back door deals via countries like Syria, Belorus etc.

[Vladimir80]

the SU-25UBT is not exaclty an offensive platform. It is a shrt raned subsonic tactical support craft.

Not exactly offensive huh?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NyCkyZv2TGg

Sit on the other end of that and see how much of a support role that feels like... :roflmao3:



I said may, at the very least direct party to party sales have taken on a serious odor for Russia who seems (along with Iran) to be looking for back door deals via countries like Syria, Belorus etc.

You say they may... I say show me where. Now you change your answer... you are wrong. Got it!

[Zraver]

Not exactly offensive huh?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NyCkyZv2TGg

Sit on the other end of that and see how much of a support role that feels like... :roflmao3:

can it do high speed low level penetration strikes like the F-15E, SU24, SU-34 etc? No, it like the A-10 is a battlefeild weapon.




You say they may... I say show me where. Now you change your answer... you are wrong. Got it!

1- I never changed my answer

Sine 95 Russia hs placed a moratorium on offensive weapons systesm sales to Iran. Current UN sanctions may block even those going by Iran's efforts to find a backdoor

Thats my original post.

Now if we want to talk changing answers, I am still waiting for proof that the Germans/Japanese sank 50% of the Lend-Lease sent to the USSR, the proven oil reserves of 13 trillion barrels, proof (like an incident report) that the Japanese sank any Soviet flagged vessels intentionally betwen Dec 1941 and Aug 1945 etc.

[Vladimir80]

can it do high speed low level penetration strikes like the F-15E, SU24, SU-34 etc? No, it like the A-10 is a battlefeild weapon.

Is the A-10 not offensive? Does it have to kill you before you will admit it?


1- I never changed my answer

And you changed it...

[Zraver]

Is the A-10 not offensive? Does it have to kill you before you will admit it?


just beign able to kill some one does not make it an offensive system. The A10 and SU-25 are not designed as offnesive systems. You won't admit this as usal when your wrong



And you changed it...

Then why doesn't show as edited?

see I dited this post and it shows

[Zraver]

so how about those sinkings, and the 13 trillion in oil still waiting on an answer.

[Vladimir80]

I'm still waiting for proof on this thread and from last month that UN resolution say Russia can't export weapons.

I never say Russia has 13 trillion, just 10x more cost effective oil reserves.

The sinkings have been cited in Pravda (1942).

[Zraver]

I'm still waiting for proof on this thread and from last month that UN resolution say Russia can't export weapons.

I said may, I am not an internatinional law lawyer.


I never say Russia has 13 trillion, just 10x more cost effective oil reserves.

No you said Russia has 10x the oil of the US. You didn't say anything about cost effectiveness. Even if we used your "changed" standards you would still have to prove 213 billion barrels of crude to reach the 10x 21.3 billion the US has in crude. But US reserves are also Kerogen based and thats your problem the stuff is economically vialbe now (if not overly profitable) and that adds 1.3 trillion barrels. That makes the US the worlds biggest respository of hydrocarbon fuels.


The sinkings have been cited in Pravda (1942).

Pravda was not known for accuracy in Stalinst Russia, how about confirmed incident reports not propganda. In other words proof. On the US side I cna find no mention of US vessels running the Vladivostock run under the Soviet flag beign attacked durign the war. best I ahve been able to find is a refrence to 24 merchant men beign sunk (340 dead) some where in FESCO's war time area. Even if all these were sunk on the vladivostock run the amount of is nkings is less than 1/3 of the ships lost on the Murmansk run. In no way did 50% of lend lease get sunk.

You sir are a liar.

[Vladimir80]

I said may, I am not a ... lawyer.

Then stop pretending to be one...


No you said Russia has 10x the oil of the US. You didn't say anything about cost effectiveness.

Oh but I did... :roflmao3:

Russian oil supplies dwarf the United States in ALL forms and is much cheaper to produce than your outlandish ideas. When you have to pay 4x the amount to extract it is no longer worth the effort. It's not like Russia couldn't extract from shale as well... we don't have to because it is bubbling out of the ground. With the new North Pole discovery and our mastery of the claim we easily have 10x US reserves.


Even if we used your "changed" standards you would still have to prove 213 billion barrels of crude to reach the 10x 21.3 billion the US has in crude. But US reserves are also Kerogen based and thats your problem the stuff is economically vialbe now (if not overly profitable) and that adds 1.3 trillion barrels. That makes the US the worlds biggest respository of hydrocarbon fuels.

It is neither economic nor environmental option for US. It takes so much to equal crude oil you would have to strip mine several states to supply your energy. Australia has already shut down operation and your new goverment will never allow it to happen. It is a non-option and does not contribute to the discussion.

Pravda was not known for accuracy in Stalinst Russia, how about confirmed incident reports not propganda. In other words proof.

I found a source... you have found nothing to disprove it. Pravda had no reason to lie in 1942 about Japanese attacks therefore propoganda would serve no purpose... your assumption is illogical as usual.

You sir are a liar.

That's the best you can come up with... :roflmao3:

[rabs]

just beign able to kill some one does not make it an offensive system. The A10 and SU-25 are not designed as offnesive systems. You won't admit this as usal when your wrong


Your just wrong bud, the A-10 was built to hunt and kill tanks, in an offensive manner. Granted it was to stop a soviet rush through Europe, and maybe in some twisted way thats defensive, but its purpose was to hunt and kill tanks. I don't understand how a weapon systems like that is defensive. Body armor is defensive, not a 30mm cannon.


It is neither economic nor environmental option for US. It takes so much to equal crude oil you would have to strip mine several states to supply your energy. Australia has already shut down operation and your new goverment will never allow it to happen. It is a non-option and does not contribute to the discussion.

If you need oil bad enough, anything is an option.

[Vladimir80]

If you need oil bad enough, anything is an option.

You would build battery powered cars first...

[Nubian Warrior]

Or use biofuels to run your tanks like the Nazi's did when it got cut off from their oil sources in North Africa.

[Zraver]

Your just wrong bud, the A-10 was built to hunt and kill tanks, in an offensive manner. Granted it was to stop a soviet rush through Europe, and maybe in some twisted way thats defensive, but its purpose was to hunt and kill tanks. I don't understand how a weapon systems like that is defensive. Body armor is defensive, not a 30mm cannon.

Hunting yes, offensive no. Unlike an attack sub or a super sonic fighter bomber a CAS plane is not capable of indipendant offensive operations against another country.

The A-10 was desinged for a defensive mission- Stop a Soviet tank thrust into Western Europe. The SU-25 was designed to support the Red Army. Post cold war Russia has claimed resolutely that they never had offensive plans to invade Europe but were worried about a NATO invasion so the SU-25 was likewise built for a defnesive mission.



If you need oil bad enough, anything is an option.

yup, and if the price of oil remains high and mideast supplies unrelaible then oil shale is attractive. unlike what Vlad thinks strip mining doe snot cause permament scars beucase the mines are filled back in. Strip mining is very common in the US. To think this particular form of strip mining would be magically banned is stupid.

Vlad,

Originally Posted by Vladimir80
Russian oil supplies dwarf the United States in ALL forms and is much cheaper to produce than your outlandish ideas. When you have to pay 4x the amount to extract it is no longer worth the effort. It's not like Russia couldn't extract from shale as well... we don't have to because it is bubbling out of the ground. With the new North Pole discovery and our mastery of the claim we easily have 10x US reserves

to bad thats not your original statement. Her eis your original statement since you feel the need to obfuscate as usal when cauht in a lie.

With calculated Caspian and Siberian oil finds Russia has 10x USA oil. That is the stupidest statement ever.

Now if we count oil shale Russia has to show 13 trillion barrels of oil reserves. If we discount oil shale then Russia has to prove 213 billion barrels in neithe rcase is your 10x claim accurate but you will spend pages denying it. Thats is why you are a liar.

Pravda is not a source, it is a claim that could be made for a vareity of reasons. I want proof like Loyd's of Londons claims, incident reports etc. Something a scholar can use to say there was Imperial Japanese agression against the USSR at sea durign WW2.

[Xenostrike 06]

Yeah..Yeah..Yeah....Please continue the stupid Thunderbolt and Frogfoot in a new thread "Ground Support Fighter" in Air Force forum.......

Is Iranian Interest in obtaining Sovremenny Class from Russia ?

[Zraver]

Yeah..Yeah..Yeah....Please continue the stupid Thunderbolt and Frogfoot in a new thread "Ground Support Fighter" in Air Force forum.......

Is Iranian Interest in obtaining Sovremenny Class from Russia ?


while a very capable surface combatant it is designed for blue water ops and doesn't really fit into Iran's defensive needs and is to expensive to buy in quanties large enough to create a blue water force.

[@@@@@!]

Hmm..and how's Iran's Subs ,will KLUB Missiles equip them ?

yes and they test fired them in the last manouver,

[Zraver]

got nay reliable reports I can check on that claim?

[@@@@@!]

Is there any proof that Iran has the sunburn or club? They operate the project 877 version of the Kilo which is Soviet era technology and not equipped to mount these missiles.

Project 636 subs are longer and have a stepped conning tower. The older vessels do not carry the Klub-S and non of Iran's surface vessels are big enough for the Club-N.

I am also dubious that Iran has the SS-N-26. Most reputable international sources show Iran reling almsot exlcusively on Chinese technology for large anti-ship missiles.

for the prove i can give you the best source

call IRIN Commander in chief and ask him directly or Minister of defence :roflmao3:

[Vladimir80]

while a very capable surface combatant it is designed for blue water ops and doesn't really fit into Iran's defensive needs and is to expensive to buy in quanties large enough to create a blue water force.


While I agree obtaining Sovremmeny is not in Iran's best interest they have not been purchased by PLAN to make them a blue water force but to reinforce their brown water capabilities. Iran wouldn't attempt to create a blue water force either as their interests lie in the littoral. There are worse things IRIN could spend their money on.

[@@@@@!]

Iran needs Destroyers. With that I mean real Destroyers, the Alvand and Moudge class are frigates. Maybe they can buy a few? I'd prefer them buy new ones from a new class but they could also buy new vessels from an older calss (not to old please, wich means not older than 1990s). I hope they'd buy many, what about buying 6? But I doubt it and I think 3 is more realistic (or maybe 1:(). Anyway if this is really not possible due to the sanctions they should make some theimselfes, but I don't think they can.

no i think you are wrong

first of all look what happened to the ones iran had without air cover they are
sitting dock, Joshan was Cluster bombed and missiled ....

secondly persian gulf and sea of oman are small and can be easily covered by fighters and bombers armmed with AS

then to defend the coast one needs couastal artillery and rocketry and missilery

3rd Subs can operate without/or minimal air cover ....

4th iran has 28 Islands and can turn them into S300 bases ...

although US has obtained 3 units of S 300 missiles through a 3rd country
it is still the best air defence ....iran has only 2 batteries of S 300 PMU1 ...

[@@@@@!]

Is there any proof that Iran has the sunburn or club? They operate the project 877 version of the Kilo which is Soviet era technology and not equipped to mount these missiles.

Project 636 subs are longer and have a stepped conning tower. The older vessels do not carry the Klub-S and non of Iran's surface vessels are big enough for the Club-N.

I am also dubious that Iran has the SS-N-26. Most reputable international sources show Iran reling almsot exlcusively on Chinese technology for large anti-ship missiles.

iran has more subs than those 3 kilo subs .... some say 12

[@@@@@!]

Thats what surplus is for. Plus long term Russia only wants an Iran only strong enough to keep the US fixated, it does not want an Iran strong enough to threaten its re-aqusition of its former empire.

iran doesn't want to do that either (re-aquisition of former empire)

[Vladimir80]

Plus long term Russia only wants an Iran only strong enough to keep the US fixated, it does not want an Iran strong enough to threaten its re-aqusition of its former empire.

:roflmao3: :roflmao3: :roflmao3:

[Zraver]

While I agree obtaining Sovremmeny is not in Iran's best interest they have not been purchased by PLAN to make them a blue water force but to reinforce their brown water capabilities. Iran wouldn't attempt to create a blue water force either as their interests lie in the littoral. There are worse things IRIN could spend their money on.

I dissagree, the PLAN is moving towards a credible blue water force, the Spratly dispute demands a capable force, as does Japan's re-armament and South Korea's emerging power.

As far as naval assets go, Iran is not in a bad spot for its needs. There is zero chance it can beat the USN head to head so large surface combatants are a waste of money. The FAC and Boghammer fleets offer the best solution for cost, durability, and capability. The IRIN's only real lack is a credible strike capability into the Indian Ocean. The SU-24's offer a good strike capability if the IRIAF could protect them but right now it can't.

I think you confued green water (littoral) with brown water (riverine)


iran has more subs than those 3 kilo subs .... some say 12

Iran's other subs are either mini's or micros meant for close inshore work, survelliance, and mine laying. They have very limited capabilites and time at sea.

[Defensor Ursa]

Thats what surplus is for. Plus long term Russia only wants an Iran only strong enough to keep the US fixated, it does not want an Iran strong enough to threaten its re-aqusition of its former empire.


Very true.

[Kermanshah1]

no i think you are wrong

first of all look what happened to the ones iran had without air cover they are
sitting dock, Joshan was Cluster bombed and missiled ....

secondly persian gulf and sea of oman are small and can be easily covered by fighters and bombers armmed with AS

then to defend the coast one needs couastal artillery and rocketry and missilery

3rd Subs can operate without/or minimal air cover ....

4th iran has 28 Islands and can turn them into S300 bases ...

although US has obtained 3 units of S 300 missiles through a 3rd country
it is still the best air defence ....iran has only 2 batteries of S 300 PMU1 ...

Joshan was not a destroyer but a gunboat. If Iran can get some destroyers they could attack US aircraft carriers with them.

iran has more subs than those 3 kilo subs .... some say 12

Actually Iran has got 13 but 2 are in reserve so 11 active.
3 Kilo class
2 SSI (in reserve)
3 Ghadir class
1 Nahang 1 class
4 Yugo class

[Vladimir80]

I dissagree, the PLAN is moving towards a credible blue water force, the Spratly dispute demands a capable force, as does Japan's re-armament and South Korea's emerging power.

No one who claims the Spratlys has a blue water capability. PLAN will move in that direction but the Sovremmenys were purchased for it's brown water denial strategy.

I think you confued green water (littoral) with brown water (riverine)

I think your understanding of the term is flawed... it means littoral areas. You will see PLAN refered to brown water in defence analysis, globalsecurity.org for example...

"PLAN remains little more than a "brown water" coastal defense"

Jane's Defence describes the Dutch fleet which has AEGIS combat systems as "DUTCH NAVY READY FOR `BROWN WATER' ROLE "...

According to the two premier defence groups brown water = littoral.

[mikex1337]

We will see what rocket powered mines will do, as well...

How do these work?

[Oriellien]

Joshan was not a destroyer but a gunboat. If Iran can get some destroyers they could attack US aircraft carriers with them.


Im not trying to go into "mine is better then yours" territory, but I dont think its smart for Iran to try to use big ships like destroyers against the US Navy. The whole strength of fast speedboats is that there is a lot, and they are small fast targets which are harder for US weapons to target. A destroyer, even frigates on the other hand are easily spotted, targetted, and destroyed. They might be useful against pirates and other small countries, but I doubt against the US.

[Kiaar]

Joshan was not a destroyer but a gunboat. If Iran can get some destroyers they could attack US aircraft carriers with them.


The US Navy has been built around destroying other large surface combatants. Taking on the US Navy head to head with frigate or larger sized ships is essentially suicide. That's why fast speed boats are better. They are fairly cheap, fast, and harder to hit.

[Xenostrike 06]

How do these work?

Rocket Launched...then Dropped mines on desired areas....no need for Minelayers..to come OR fired on Directly Fired on Surface ships

The US Navy has been built around destroying other large surface combatants. Taking on the US Navy head to head with frigate or larger sized ships is essentially suicide. That's why fast speed boats are better. They are fairly cheap, fast, and harder to hit.

Agree..especially if the Fast Attack Craft have Sunburns or Onyx Equipped....Due to Difference in RCS...the Fast attack Craft would be able to Detect Cruiser Sized target earlier before being detected...Hmm something around 5-15 minutes...would be enough to launch the Yakhonts...

[Zraver]

no no no rocket mines cannot be deployed by rockets, but must be emplaced conventionally. They fire a rocket mine (similar to a rocket torpedo) upwards into the hulls of enemy vessels at around 50-80m/s. They are weak as mines go with smaller warheads, but becuase they have the ability to strike from deep water (200-400m) they can be emplaced in non conventional ways and are hard to sweep conventionally. They also have a cross range capability of upto to 3km est.

[Xenostrike 06]

no no no rocket mines cannot be deployed by rockets, but must be emplaced conventionally. They fire a rocket mine (similar to a rocket torpedo) upwards into the hulls of enemy vessels at around 50-80m/s. They are weak as mines go with smaller warheads, but becuase they have the ability to strike from deep water (200-400m) they can be emplaced in non conventional ways and are hard to sweep conventionally. They also have a cross range capability of upto to 3km est.

no need for "no..no..no" you sounds like angry boy...:biggrin1:

an Image would fit as a complement in your words

anyway do you mean The rocket mine is Placed Underwater then,once enemy ships cross if it would fire Upwards....?

[Bosnian]

Iran can build remote controlled mine-boats. A small GPS navigated boats which have self-propulsion (just like ordinary boat) and when it comes at place it would load with water and submerged. Even it could have anchor. When mine is not needed it could simple be ordered to return back, drop the anchor, empty the water, immobilize charge and cruise to the location where mother-ship would take it back. This way you would not need ships or rockets to lay mines. They can be made of fiber-glass.

[Zraver]

no need for "no..no..no" you sounds like angry boy...:biggrin1:

an Image would fit as a complement in your words

anyway do you mean The rocket mine is Placed Underwater then,once enemy ships cross if it would fire Upwards....?

Yes, they fire upward once emplaced.

[Xenostrike 06]

Iran can build remote controlled mine-boats. A small GPS navigated boats which have self-propulsion (just like ordinary boat) and when it comes at place it would load with water and submerged. Even it could have anchor. When mine is not needed it could simple be ordered to return back, drop the anchor, empty the water, immobilize charge and cruise to the location where mother-ship would take it back. This way you would not need ships or rockets to lay mines. They can be made of fiber-glass.

looks interesting :biggrin1:

[Kermanshah1]

The US Navy has been built around destroying other large surface combatants. Taking on the US Navy head to head with frigate or larger sized ships is essentially suicide. That's why fast speed boats are better. They are fairly cheap, fast, and harder to hit.

Im not trying to go into "mine is better then yours" territory, but I dont think its smart for Iran to try to use big ships like destroyers against the US Navy. The whole strength of fast speedboats is that there is a lot, and they are small fast targets which are harder for US weapons to target. A destroyer, even frigates on the other hand are easily spotted, targetted, and destroyed. They might be useful against pirates and other small countries, but I doubt against the US.

Well ok, maybe it isn't such good idea.

[rabs]

Are we forgetting the US has the ability to lock down the GPS system.

[Zraver]

Are we forgetting the US has the ability to lock down the GPS system.

You don't need GPS, Iran's own navigation beacons would work well enough if the mine ships were employed before the outbreak of hostilities.

[Nubian Warrior]

Iran can build remote controlled mine-boats. A small GPS navigated boats which have self-propulsion (just like ordinary boat) and when it comes at place it would load with water and submerged. Even it could have anchor. When mine is not needed it could simple be ordered to return back, drop the anchor, empty the water, immobilize charge and cruise to the location where mother-ship would take it back. This way you would not need ships or rockets to lay mines. They can be made of fiber-glass.

The general of the JOC of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps did not mention whether they are GPS navidagets or not be he did mention that they have UNVs (unmanned naval vessels) and you can guess the unlimited number of possibilities that can be used at their disposal with these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9aTxgFcABw&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9aTxgFcABw

Click here to find out more!
Iranian joint chief of staff

[Bosnian]

The general of the JOC of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps did not mention whether they are GPS navidagets or not be he did mention that they have UNVs (unmanned naval vessels) and you can guess the unlimited number of possibilities that can be used at their disposal with these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9aTxgFcABw&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9aTxgFcABw

Click here to find out more!
Iranian joint chief of staff

Yea, you may lay tiny fibre-optic wire in the sea, 10 km from seashore if needed. At the end you connect anchored platform with ability to submerge when needed, and that platform may have many sensors including various type of cameras. And you have 24h Hormus survilance and nothing could pass above the sea and not to be seen. This also could be acustic post for submarines survilence.

[Lurker22]

Do any of you guys see in the next half decade(5 years) Iran announcing an aircraft carrier type project?

Or do you guys believe in Iran's interest they are useless?

Because India has already begun there project and are 2-3 years away from completion of an aircraft carrier.


I think that as long as Iran has F-14 and F-4's it's useless, but once the Shafaq and other Iranian aircraft come into service, it might not be a bad decision.

[Vladimir80]

Do any of you guys see in the next half decade(5 years) Iran announcing an aircraft carrier type project?

Are you joking? :worried2:

[Lurker22]

Are you joking? :worried2:

I am guessing Iran is very far away from making aircraft carriers?:err2:

[Vladimir80]

I am guessing Iran is very far away from making aircraft carriers?:err2:

A very long way...

[Kiaar]

I am guessing Iran is very far away from making aircraft carriers?:err2:

The amount of money, material, and technology needed to create a state of the art aircraft carrier is currently just way beyond where Iran is right now.

[Zraver]

If and I do stress If Iran wanted a carrier their best bet would be to pick up one of India's as a joint venture

[Vladimir80]

Iran doesn't need an aircraft carrier... they need AWACs.

[Xenostrike 06]

Iran doesn't need an aircraft carrier... they need AWACs.

did they still operate the Ex-Iraqis A-50 Mainstay variants ?

[Vladimir80]

did they still operate the Ex-Iraqis A-50 Mainstay variants ?

I've seen a satelite picture of something similar in Iran...

[Xenostrike 06]

PATCH it here please :wub2:

BTW any need for Iran to have guided Missile Armed Cruiser like Kirov

[Vladimir80]

PATCH it here please :wub2:

BTW any need for Iran to have guided Missile Armed Cruiser like Kirov

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=EarthMilitary&Number=483004&Searchpage=1&Main=482933&Words=+jclarke&topic=&Search=true

[Zraver]

Big combatants, cruisers, carriers, nuclaer powere dsubs are for power projection. Iran as an energy exporter and member of OPEC has less need of power projection assets, the world has to do business with her.

Vlad, personally I think AWACs is the last thing the IIRAF needs. Modenr versions of these planes are very expensive and if there is one thing the F-22 is going to excell at its going to be AWACs assassination.

While I remain skeptical that the IRST can work as well as some people claim vs the F-22. A larger number of a good multi-role aircraft that can fight itself into and out of a target vs 4 and 4.5 gen aircraft is a better idea than a few such panes and AWACs

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Iran doesn't need an aircraft carrier... they need AWACs.

True, Iran has some capability but needs more. Luckily it is an electronic issue and electronic knowhow is not hard to come by in Iran. I think it will be a short lived issue.

[Vladimir80]

True, Iran has some capability but needs more. Luckily it is an electronic issue and electronic knowhow is not hard to come by in Iran. I think it will be a short lived issue.

I have heard rumors that Iran and Ukraine's Antanov are working together to complete AWACs project.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I have heard rumors that Iran and Ukraine's Antanov are working together to complete AWACs project.

That wouldn't shock me due to known projects.

[Kermanshah1]

Do any of you guys see in the next half decade(5 years) Iran announcing an aircraft carrier type project?

Or do you guys believe in Iran's interest they are useless?

Because India has already begun there project and are 2-3 years away from completion of an aircraft carrier.


I think that as long as Iran has F-14 and F-4's it's useless, but once the Shafaq and other Iranian aircraft come into service, it might not be a bad decision.

Iran isn't in the same position as India. Iran is under the threat of being attacked by the US so they have to make their navy not a strong navy but a navy that can beat the US navy. So Iran can not make and aircraft carrier, the Us will destroy it. Why would Iran need it anyway? are they going to be attacking countries that are that far away that they can't reach it with their planes.

[Khaybar]

I have heard rumors that Iran and Ukraine's Antanov are working together to complete AWACs project.

There have also been rumors that Ukrain is willing to sell the Kolchuga Radar system to Iran, combine with an aa missile defence array such as the Tor-m1, or s300, the Kolchuga could detect and shoot down stealth fighters and bombers.

I do not know if this is a reliable source, but it is interesting nonetheless:

http://www.rense.com/general73/detect.htm

By the way is the s300 pmu2 or s400 capable of stealth detection?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Kiaar]

Iran isn't in the same position as India. Iran is under the threat of being attacked by the US so they have to make their navy not a strong navy but a navy that can beat the US navy. So Iran can not make and aircraft carrier, the Us will destroy it. Why would Iran need it anyway? are they going to be attacking countries that are that far away that they can't reach it with their planes.

The point is though that Iran can't make a Navy that can beat the US Navy by itself. With enough speed boats and missiles, they can probably make a force that might be able to damage the carrier fleets near them- maybe. The US fleets could easily just sit out of range though of those ships, which are very limited in range.

Even if they could damage those fleets enough to force a withdrawl, they would take massive losses in doing so. US Naval capabilities are the best in the world. I'm not saying that to get into a "ours is better" argument or anything, it's simply how it is.

[Vladimir80]

There have also been rumors that Ukrain is willing to sell the Kolchuga Radar system to Iran, combine with an aa missile defence array such as the Tor-m1, or s300, the Kolchuga could detect and shoot down stealth fighters and bombers.

I do not know if this is a reliable source, but it is interesting nonetheless:

http://www.rense.com/general73/detect.htm

By the way is the s300 pmu2 or s400 capable of stealth detection?

Kolchuga has already been shipped to Syria and lifted to Iran. There was a big row over it last year with Israel trying to stop shipment in Cyprus.

The S-300/400 missile complex are directed by Kolchuga to general location of stealth aircraft but would have to rely on their own systems to make the final kill. Once you have detected the stealth you can tell it from background clutter and target it with regular systems. Kolchuga helps you locate and sort through that clutter so you aren't shooting at birds.

[Khaybar]

Kolchuga has already been shipped to Syria and lifted to Iran. There was a big row over it last year with Israel trying to stop shipment in Cyprus.

The S-300/400 missile complex are directed by Kolchuga to general location of stealth aircraft but would have to rely on their own systems to make the final kill. Once you have detected the stealth you can tell it from background clutter and target it with regular systems. Kolchuga helps you locate and sort through that clutter so you aren't shooting at birds.

I thought Yushencko was pro-american, so how was he able to sell Kolchuga and still have us support?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Vladimir80]

I thought Yushencko was pro-american, so how was he able to sell Kolchuga and still have us support?

The president is only a figurehead... the PM and parliament are pro-Russian.

[Zraver]

There have also been rumors that Ukrain is willing to sell the Kolchuga Radar system to Iran, combine with an aa missile defence array such as the Tor-m1, or s300, the Kolchuga could detect and shoot down stealth fighters and bombers.

I do not know if this is a reliable source, but it is interesting nonetheless:

http://www.rense.com/general73/detect.htm

By the way is the s300 pmu2 or s400 capable of stealth detection?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام


The Kolcghuga cannot detect stealth running under tactical emcon using only thier directional satalite links as a relay between each other. The USAF also claims that the AESA on the F-22 is undetectable itself. How or why I don't know but they have made the claim.

The Kolchuga releis on being in the path of an electronics emission. This is fine and dandy for detectign radars and normal freqs. But the USAF has bene doing this with airborne systems since the 1960's and is well awar eof the threat and how to counter it.

Neither the S-300 or S-400 can detect all apsect stealth aircraft. There are reports (conflicting) that the S-300PMU and S-400 can defeat limited apsect stealth at close range.

The Kolchuga doesn't really help Iran. The systems that can make use of it, are the ones assigne dot high value targets ie the B-2 targets. If war breaks out most of these targets (nuclear, RnD sites etc) will be hit, but not until later, only the political and military command and control targets will be hit ealry. The war will be fought over soft targets and on the coast where Iran has to use older far less capable systems that are vulnerable to SEAD missions and tomahawk strikes.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

The Kolchuga releis on being in the path of an electronics emission.

It doesn't work like that. There is no such thing as an electronic device that relies on being in path of a signature or signal (electronics emission). A laser, maybe, not any kind of electronic device.

[Zraver]

It doesn't work like that. There is no such thing as an electronic device that relies on being in path of a signature or signal (electronics emission). A laser, maybe, not any kind of electronic device.


The Kolchuga in simplr form relies on 3 trucks and a command van with the processor. The 3 trucks are all equipped witha broad spectrum array to detect electronic emissions. A 747 broadcasting in the open on its normal commerical air route can be detected from hundreds of miles away, a pair tactical fighter bombers making a low level insertion perhaps 10's of miles away. The point beign the system has to be in the path of the radiated emissions to detect them. Directional shielded emissions that never reach the ground cannot be detected, neither can freqs above or below the Kolchuga's envelope 100 MHz -18 GHz. Military GPS as an example operates near 1mhz well below the Kolchuga's envelope. It is also specualtion wether or not the Kolchuga can keep up with the AN/APG-77 frequncy skipping and 2 degree by 2 degree tight beaming.

Plus the F-22 is itself a flyign Kolchua of sorts with the AN/ALR-94 ESM system with 30 blended antena that allow it to detect emissions within 250nm.

Ohh by the way, all electronics devices that detect emissiosn ahve to be in the path of the admission to detect it. From the radar detector on a car, to the IR snesor on a toilet, to the Kolchuga, if it is not in the path of the signal it cannot detect it.

[Vladimir80]

The Kolcghuga cannot detect stealth running under tactical emcon using only thier directional satalite links as a relay between each other.

I'm afraid not... they have to have an operational datalink to do so and this operates in the UHF band which can be picked up by Kolchuga. Anything within 100 MHZ to 18 GHZ is detectable.

The Kolchuga releis on being in the path of an electronics emission.

Electronic emissions are not relative to line of sight unless it is beam ridden. Certain frequencies like microwave UHF need to be line of sight but something as simple as RF is a broad spectrum picked up anywhere.

[Zraver]

I'm afraid not... they have to have an operational datalink to do so and this operates in the UHF band which can be picked up by Kolchuga. Anything within 100 MHZ to 18 GHZ is detectable.


the datalink is probalby not a strong enough radiation to detect when the F-22 are doing a hostile penetation. Give the USAF and the 120million USD price tag some credit. Plus we do not know if the datalink is required in combat, if it can be crosslinked through the satalite net to kill active emissions, or if it can be steered and is directional shielded.

Plus the B-2 tends to work alone and is the real threat to the interior targets of a targeted nation.


Electronic emissions are not relative to line of sight unless it is beam ridden. Certain frequencies like microwave UHF need to be line of sight but something as simple as RF is a broad spectrum picked up anywhere.

Not true some freqs are easily blocked by hills even if they are broadcasting without directional sheilding. This has been known for ages and is one reason planes like using valleys for insertions. You can notice the same thing in a car on hills with FM radio if you are a decent distance from the transmittor.

[Vladimir80]

the datalink is probalby not a strong enough radiation to detect when the F-22 are doing a hostile penetation. Give the USAF and the 120million USD price tag some credit. Plus we do not know if the datalink is required in combat, if it can be crosslinked through the satalite net to kill active emissions, or if it can be steered and is directional shielded.

The datalink is the perverbial lifeline... it can operate without it but it's usefulness as a sensor platform is useless. It will be completely on internal systems. We might give the USAF credit but they have already been given too much with F-22 hype. To do so is at the expense of Ukraine... I will give Ukraine the benefit this time.

Plus the B-2 tends to work alone and is the real threat to the interior targets of a targeted nation.

The B-2s only have 4-6 operational at any one time... it is a marginal threat.

Not true some freqs are easily blocked by hills even if they are broadcasting without directional sheilding. This has been known for ages and is one reason planes like using valleys for insertions. You can notice the same thing in a car on hills with FM radio if you are a decent distance from the transmittor.

I wasn't refering to anything as large as mountains but rather brush that can conceal location of the station. Any commander who wants to extend range will place their system at optimal location for better recieving. It doesn't limit their options in hardly any way.

[Zraver]

The datalink is the perverbial lifeline... it can operate without it but it's usefulness as a sensor platform is useless. It will be completely on internal systems. We might give the USAF credit but they have already been given too much with F-22 hype. To do so is at the expense of Ukraine... I will give Ukraine the benefit this time.

I dissagree, it only need to share data real time in certain situations. Its own ESM is quite capable of detectign enemy emissions and satalite communication can be used for voice.



The B-2s only have 4-6 operational at any one time... it is a marginal threat.


thats 4-6 high val targets that are dead or seriously degraded. Look at the damage a single F-117 did in 1991. Every nation has center of gravity points where a single or a few well placed blows can do damage all out of proportion to the amount of explosive used.


I wasn't refering to anything as large as mountains but rather brush that can conceal location of the station. Any commander who wants to extend range will place their system at optimal location for better recieving. It doesn't limit their options in hardly any way.

I agree, but Iran is such a hilly country in areas that there will be areas of degraded performance. Plus by its very nature it is suseptable to broad area jamming.

[Persianbob]

Thank you I am back,

[Vladimir80]

I dissagree, it only need to share data real time in certain situations. Its own ESM is quite capable of detectign enemy emissions and satalite communication can be used for voice.

You greatly overestimate the capabilities of it's ESM... it is not a surveillance aircraft, it is a superiority fighter.

thats 4-6 high val targets that are dead or seriously degraded. Look at the damage a single F-117 did in 1991. Every nation has center of gravity points where a single or a few well placed blows can do damage all out of proportion to the amount of explosive used.

After watching first Gulf War hostile nations have taken appropriate steps to make C&C less vulnerable to deep strike. It is common in white papers across the globe.

I agree, but Iran is such a hilly country in areas that there will be areas of degraded performance. Plus by its very nature it is suseptable to broad area jamming.

It is not a radar, it is a passive broad band reciever... you will never find it to send a jamming signal.

[Zraver]

You greatly overestimate the capabilities of it's ESM... it is not a surveillance aircraft, it is a superiority fighter.


It is a stealth superiority fighter and active emissiosn ruin stealth so a good esm suite is critcal. Plus unlike the Kolchuga it sits very very high up with unrestricted LOS


After watching first Gulf War hostile nations have taken appropriate steps to make C&C less vulnerable to deep strike. It is common in white papers across the globe.

there are certain things that cannot be properly protected.



It is not a radar, it is a passive broad band reciever... you will never find it to send a jamming signal.

Becuase it is a passive system you don't need to know where it is you can blanket an area based on geography. After all the spots with the best LOS are pretty well easy to figure out witha topographical map and NASA has radar mapped the entire globe. Just to overload the processors, and unlike a Radar it cannot burn through the jamming. Most reports say the system can actively monitor 32 channels while scanning all. So a jammer that can slow hop 32 freqs might be able to keep the system gummed up.

[Vladimir80]

It is a stealth superiority fighter and active emissiosn ruin stealth so a good esm suite is critcal. Plus unlike the Kolchuga it sits very very high up with unrestricted LOS

There is not enough room on this wonder aircraft to contain so many systems. It would be jumbo jet with as much imaginary capabilties as you give it. :laugh4:


there are certain things that cannot be properly protected.

C&C is certainly one that can be as it can be mobile. Only stationary targets are at full risk.


Becuase it is a passive system you don't need to know where it is you can blanket an area based on geography. After all the spots with the best LOS are pretty well easy to figure out witha topographical map and NASA has radar mapped the entire globe. Just to overload the processors, and unlike a Radar it cannot burn through the jamming. Most reports say the system can actively monitor 32 channels while scanning all. So a jammer that can slow hop 32 freqs might be able to keep the system gummed up.

How do you plan to get this jamming aircraft into the area... Kolchuga will pick it up and it will be shot down before it gets over the border.

[Persianbob]

I read about serbian war with nato Impressive .
5th gen for f22/f35 are questionable it seems that company who produces these aircrafts are selling bill of goods again to tax payers.

[Zraver]

There is not enough room on this wonder aircraft to contain so many systems. It would be jumbo jet with as much imaginary capabilties as you give it. :laugh4:

AN/ALR-94 its no joke, the F-22 is plenty big enough for it. Computers are not that big after all and the system has 30 antenna so it can self triangulate. The aircrats own bearign height and speed, plus where and which reciever has the best signal. This is fairly old technology it is simply an expanded RWR which goes back to the 60's.




C&C is certainly one that can be as it can be mobile. Only stationary targets are at full risk.

If your mobile your transmiting, probalby vulnerable to cluster bombs, and lack full capabilites. plus some functions cannot be made very mobile at all either becuase they are tied to a fixed network, or too manpower intensive




How do you plan to get this jamming aircraft into the area... Kolchuga will pick it up and it will be shot down before it gets over the border.

The jamming aircraft doesn't need to get that close. The signals it is emitting only need to be stronger than the tactical aircraft in front of it ove rthe supsected Kolchuga locations. I've doen similar things as a prank. With my old Galaxy 88 radio and a 400 watt linear amplifyer i could override drive though systems from the other side of a parking lot.

I know the B-52's radar jammers were supposedly massive, iit would not be hard to fit a C-130 with powerful broad spectrum emitters that could operated well out in the Persian gulf and still reach deep inside Iran.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

The Kolchuga in simplr form relies on 3 trucks and a command van with the processor. The 3 trucks are all equipped witha broad spectrum array to detect electronic emissions. A 747 broadcasting in the open on its normal commerical air route can be detected from hundreds of miles away, a pair tactical fighter bombers making a low level insertion perhaps 10's of miles away. The point beign the system has to be in the path of the radiated emissions to detect them. Directional shielded emissions that never reach the ground cannot be detected, neither can freqs above or below the Kolchuga's envelope 100 MHz -18 GHz. Military GPS as an example operates near 1mhz well below the Kolchuga's envelope. It is also specualtion wether or not the Kolchuga can keep up with the AN/APG-77 frequncy skipping and 2 degree by 2 degree tight beaming.

Plus the F-22 is itself a flyign Kolchua of sorts with the AN/ALR-94 ESM system with 30 blended antena that allow it to detect emissions within 250nm.

Ohh by the way, all electronics devices that detect emissiosn ahve to be in the path of the admission to detect it. From the radar detector on a car, to the IR snesor on a toilet, to the Kolchuga, if it is not in the path of the signal it cannot detect it.

Are you trying to debate here?

By the way, photo-sensors are much different from electronic sensors (radar).
By the way, your completely wrong. It doesn't help to cut and place data that you do not understand and does not have anything to do with the issue.

[Zraver]

WTH are you talking about? The Kolchuga is a passive broad band listening and location finding system. If there is not some sort of emitted electronic emission reaching its antenna it is useless. Thats not cut and paste thats simple fact.

By the way, photo-sensors are much different from electronic sensors

Uhmm what does the Kolchuga have to do with visual images?

Photo= greek- light

[Behrooz Boonabi]

WTH are you talking about? The Kolchuga is a passive broad band listening and location finding system. If there is not some sort of emitted electronic emission reaching its antenna it is useless. Thats not cut and paste thats simple fact.

It is also a simple fact that nearly everything makes an emission, especially if it is made with even a small amount of ferrous material. The Kolchuga's advantage is that it can detect just about anything because it is so sensitive. Sometimes Russians make somethings genius. Allot of math skills went into that.


Uhmm what does the Kolchuga have to do with visual images?

Photo= greek- light

You brought it up not me.

[Zraver]

It is also a simple fact that nearly everything makes an emission, especially if it is made with even a small amount of ferrous material. The Kolchuga's advantage is that it can detect just about anything because it is so sensitive. Sometimes Russians make somethings genius. Allot of math skills went into that.

Some times the Russians do prodce genius, its not limite dot any one race, but not this time. Kolchuga is Ukranian.

Ferrous metal does not make an RF emission it disruts the earths magnetic feild. Even if a mad sensor could be created to detect a plane, it owuldn't be the Kolchuga which is an RF detection device from 100Mhz to 1800Ghz




You brought it up not me.

I did? huh when?

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Ferrous metal does not make an RF emission it disruts the earths magnetic feild.

Ferrous metal causes RF emissions very well. How do you think RF works in the first place?

Even if a mad sensor could be created to detect a plane, it owuldn't be the Kolchuga which is an RF detection device from 100Mhz to 1800Ghz


Everything puts out a range of frequencies, looks like the Kolchuga has an extremely large frequency range. It would be real hard to get by that.


I did? huh when?

You probably didn't read it when you pasted it.

[Zraver]

show me please

Ferrous metal does not make emissions detectable by the Kolchuga. If it did then the earth itself would drown out the system.

[Kermanshah1]

The point is though that Iran can't make a Navy that can beat the US Navy by itself. With enough speed boats and missiles, they can probably make a force that might be able to damage the carrier fleets near them- maybe. The US fleets could easily just sit out of range though of those ships, which are very limited in range.

Even if they could damage those fleets enough to force a withdrawl, they would take massive losses in doing so. US Naval capabilities are the best in the world. I'm not saying that to get into a "ours is better" argument or anything, it's simply how it is.

no doubt the US is stronger but if Iran can take out the Air-craft carriers then the US is left without airforce and then Iran can send up thier planes.

[Xenostrike 06]

no doubt the US is stronger but if Iran can take out the Air-craft carriers then the US is left without airforce and then Iran can send up thier planes.

i think there's no need to Take out the Carrier..just Delay their Operation by Hitting its Islands with Oniks or Sunburn ..and strengthen shore defenses by hiding Some SAM's

anyway did Iran has enough number of Anti Air raid shelter to Cover their Aircraft..or some Dirt based Runaway if the conventional one Taken out

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Anti Air raid shelter to Cover their Aircraft..or some Dirt based Runaway if the conventional one Taken out

It is known that there is alot of underground facilities of substantial size but I do not know about any dirt runways. Perhaps bulldozers can make them if necessary.

[Xenostrike 06]

It is known that there is alot of underground facilities of substantial size but I do not know about any dirt runways. Perhaps bulldozers can make them if necessary.

so things that we need to concern now if There's a a B2 come with Bunker Busters...

[Behrooz Boonabi]

so things that we need to concern now if There's a a B2 come with Bunker Busters...

Well the "Bunker Busters" didn't do anything Saddam's bunkers, I dont think they can have much effect on deaper, more fortified construction. Earth is a powerful material.

[Xenostrike 06]

Well the "Bunker Busters" didn't do anything Saddam's bunkers, I dont think they can have much effect on deaper, more fortified construction. Earth is a powerful material.

Hmm thx...anyway did Iranians ready for American's new weapons like EMP Bombs

the Bunkers need Farady Caging to protect the electronics OR relies on Better Vacuum Tube technology

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Hmm thx...anyway did Iranians ready for American's new weapons like EMP Bombs


I think you need a different thread for that but there is an industry for that


the Bunkers need Farady Caging to protect the electronics OR relies on Better Vacuum Tube technology

Actually, Earth is very protective itself.

[Vladimir80]

AN/ALR-94 its no joke, the F-22 is plenty big enough for it. Computers are not that big after all and the system has 30 antenna so it can self triangulate. The aircrats own bearign height and speed, plus where and which reciever has the best signal. This is fairly old technology it is simply an expanded RWR which goes back to the 60's.

Are you just pulling this stuff out of your arse as you go? The AN/ALR-94 is a radar homing & warning system. Kolchuga doesn't use radar and in fact doesn't emit anything. :sorry3:


If your mobile your transmiting, probalby vulnerable to cluster bombs, and lack full capabilites. plus some functions cannot be made very mobile at all either becuase they are tied to a fixed network, or too manpower intensive

You have to find them first... that is the whole point of being mobile.

The jamming aircraft doesn't need to get that close. The signals it is emitting only need to be stronger than the tactical aircraft in front of it ove rthe supsected Kolchuga locations. I've doen similar things as a prank. With my old Galaxy 88 radio and a 400 watt linear amplifyer i could override drive though systems from the other side of a parking lot.

The jamming aircraft has to get close if they want their transmiter to be strong enough to interfere with Kolchuga. Are you forgetting the law of signal return? The other side of a parking lot and staying out of S-300 range is two different things. Not to mention there is no jammer on earth that can cover all the spectrums of Kolchuga.

I know the B-52's radar jammers were supposedly massive, iit would not be hard to fit a C-130 with powerful broad spectrum emitters that could operated well out in the Persian gulf and still reach deep inside Iran.

Your problem is you are thinking Kolchuga is a radar... it is not and none of what you are saying applies.

[Zraver]

Are you just pulling this stuff out of your arse as you go? The AN/ALR-94 is a radar homing & warning system. Kolchuga doesn't use radar and in fact doesn't emit anything. :sorry3:

Nice red herring, I never said the system could detect a Kolchuga. The AN/ALR-94 is an ESM system not just a RWR.




You have to find them first... that is the whole point of being mobile.

True I never denied that, bit if a mobile group is found things get nasty. Erwin Rommel was taken out by marauding allied Fighter bombers in France



The jamming aircraft has to get close if they want their transmiter to be strong enough to interfere with Kolchuga. Are you forgetting the law of signal return? The other side of a parking lot and staying out of S-300 range is two different things. Not to mention there is no jammer on earth that can cover all the spectrums of Kolchuga.

It would not be hard to build it. specially give the size and power avaiable in a transport aircraft. Plus the emitter only has to be big enough and caapble enough to keep the Kolchuga's processors occupied and ignoring weaker tactical emissions.



Your problem is you are thinking Kolchuga is a radar... it is not and none of what you are saying applies.

The problem is you seem to think the Kolchuga is magic its not. It truth it operatres on exactly the same principal as the return part of a radar set. It can only provide information on signals that reach its large sensative ears. Any reciever can be jammed

[Vladimir80]

Nice red herring, I never said the system could detect a Kolchuga. The AN/ALR-94 is an ESM system not just a RWR.

I'm afraid not...

Description TOP

The AN/ALR-94 is reported to provide RF warning and countermeasure functions, together with missile-launch warning, and to be integrated with the AN/ALE-52 flare dispenser.

Janes Information Group

True I never denied that, bit if a mobile group is found things get nasty. Erwin Rommel was taken out by marauding allied Fighter bombers in France

If your going to accuratly designate them your going to need HUM-INT... something you DON'T have.

It would not be hard to build it. specially give the size and power avaiable in a transport aircraft. Plus the emitter only has to be big enough and caapble enough to keep the Kolchuga's processors occupied and ignoring weaker tactical emissions.

Kolchuga is a directional finder, unless your transmitter is flying on top of your strike package your wasting your time, even then you would be wasting your time. :sorry3:

The problem is you seem to think the Kolchuga is magic its not. It truth it operatres on exactly the same principal as the return part of a radar set. It can only provide information on signals that reach its large sensative ears. Any reciever can be jammed

It can't be jammed if it can't be detected. Not to mention it's large band spectrum can never be jammed and can detect emissions on several levels from RF to UHF.

[Xenostrike 06]

It can't be jammed if it can't be detected. Not to mention it's large band spectrum can never be jammed and can detect emissions on several levels from RF to UHF.


can it be "Overloaded" ?


any ECCM method employed by Kolchuga to overcome Jamming attempt ?

[Zraver]

I'm afraid not...

I am afraid so, even your own post shows that it is an RF receiver not jsut a RWR.




[/quote]
If your going to accuratly designate them your going to need HUM-INT... something you DON'T have.[/quote]

Prove it, plus do not under estimate satalites and elint. Running amilitary requires a lot of people and a lot of emissions.


[/quote]
Kolchuga is a directional finder, unless your transmitter is flying on top of your strike package your wasting your time, even then you would be wasting your time. :sorry3:[/quote]

Not really, the Kolchuga can only process so much information at one time, no system has unlimited processing that means it can be jammed.


[/quote]
It can't be jammed if it can't be detected. Not to mention it's large band spectrum can never be jammed and can detect emissions on several levels from RF to UHF.[/QUOTE]

The TV, radio and cell phone towers ahve no idea where my electronics (excpet for the cell all passive recievers) are, yet strangely enough the signal reaches them. With passive recievers you don't need a location just an area.


can it be "Overloaded" ?

Any reciever can be overloaded. Procesign power is limited no matter how great it is.


any ECCM method employed by Kolchuga to overcome Jamming attempt

Almost assuredly, the Ukranian engineers are not stupid, but they are human and everything has a weakness.

[Xenostrike 06]

Any reciever can be overloaded. Procesign power is limited no matter how great it is.



Almost assuredly, the Ukranian engineers are not stupid, but they are human and everything has a weakness.

so does the Jammer....hmm..since Kolchuga has a Wide band of frequency...shifting it would be good solution..if the Jammers switched to that frequency..Kolchuga shift it to other as well..weakening the Jammer's energy

or use Omni Directional pecker antenna for ECCM...

[Zraver]

so does the Jammer....hmm..since Kolchuga has a Wide band of frequency...shifting it would be good solution..if the Jammers switched to that frequency..Kolchuga shift it to other as well..weakening the Jammer's energy

or use Omni Directional pecker antenna for ECCM...


The Kolchuga cannot choose what feqs it monitors becuase it has its earstuned from 100Mhz to 1800Ghz all the time. The Kolchuga can priortize what freqs it tracks (most sources say 32 at a time). A Jammer's job would entail keeping those 32 processing slots tied up with strong emissions that would drown out real tactical transmissions.

Plus with trunking it might (and I sress might beucase we jsut dont know) be possible for tactical aircraft to piggy back on the jammed freq and spoof the entire system into tunning them out as jamming attmepts.

[Xenostrike 06]

Plus with trunking it might (and I sress might beucase we jsut dont know) be possible for tactical aircraft to piggy back on the jammed freq and spoof the entire system into tunning them out as jamming attmepts.

your words also can be considered as "Jamming Attempts"

do you mean The Tactical fighter do some kind of "false Jamming" BUT transmit the Real Communication while the ECCM attempt will filter that frequency out....

[Zraver]

your words also can be considered as "Jamming Attempts"

do you mean The Tactical fighter do some kind of "false Jamming" BUT transmit the Real Communication while the ECCM attempt will filter that frequency out....

Yes, a jammer or jammers will broadband across certain frequencies fully epxecting the Kolchugas processors to filter the bands out. However in the midst of the jamming is a real carrier freq hidden amongst the seeming white noise.

[Vladimir80]

can it be "Overloaded" ?


any ECCM method employed by Kolchuga to overcome Jamming attempt ?

Kolchuga is a multi spectrum omni-directional passive reciever. It emits no signal to be located so no attempt at area jamming would work as they don't know what frequency the station is covering or what azimuth the antenna is pointing.

[Vladimir80]

I am afraid so, even your own post shows that it is an RF receiver not jsut a RWR.

What does having an RF reciever matter when Kolchuga doesn't emit? :worried2:

Prove it, plus do not under estimate satalites and elint. Running amilitary requires a lot of people and a lot of emissions.

The inability to crush the insugency in Iraq is proof enough... not to mention you losing 200,000 small arms :roflmao3:

Not really, the Kolchuga can only process so much information at one time, no system has unlimited processing that means it can be jammed.

It can choose what it wants to process... duhr :worried2:

The TV, radio and cell phone towers ahve no idea where my electronics (excpet for the cell all passive recievers) are, yet strangely enough the signal reaches them. With passive recievers you don't need a location just an area.

There isn't enough power to be generated on an aircraft to cover such a broad area which is why jammers need to know the location of the source. :no4:

Any reciever can be overloaded. Procesign power is limited no matter how great it is.

As stated previously, you don't have enough power and don't know where it is to direct that kind of power so no go.


P.S. Please clean your quotes before leaving a post... it is hard to read.

Thanx

[@@@@@!]

hey guys

I was checking a coordinate I got from "chinese defence today forum" on google earth ,...

it was Iran Bandar Abbas port , they had like 4 ships with helicopter deck

it must some sort of Mowj ... there were 4 of them , you can see the big

X crossing on the deck ....

[Kermanshah1]

hey guys

I was checking a coordinate I got from "chinese defence today forum" on google earth ,...

it was Iran Bandar Abbas port , they had like 4 ships with helicopter deck

it must some sort of Mowj ... there were 4 of them , you can see the big

X crossing on the deck ....

There are 2 Moudge class ships, both have a helicopter pad and are in Bandar Abbas but I don't know what the 2 2 ships are.

[Nubian Warrior]

Is it not possible for Iran's navy to install SAM's on some of their naval vessels? I believe that would *** as a deterrent. I heard ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ivDEHmcotw ) the navy general say that they have guided anti-ship missiles (what kind?) for their missile boats. Since the shahab-3 is a ground based missile that cannot be used on their ships ( they tried that already) at this point, a SAM on some of their ships will compliment the anti-ship missiles and take some of the pressure off of their f-4's and f-14's .

[Kermanshah1]

Is it not possible for Iran's navy to install SAM's on some of their naval vessels? I believe that would *** as a deterrent. I heard ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ivDEHmcotw ) the navy general say that they have guided anti-ship missiles (what kind?) for their missile boats. Since the shahab-3 is a ground based missile that cannot be used on their ships ( they tried that already) at this point, a SAM on some of their ships will compliment the anti-ship missiles and take some of the pressure off of their f-4's and f-14's .

As anti-ship missiles they have the Noor, a long-range cruise missile wich has a range of 200km. Then they have the Kowsar anti-ship missile but that one is land-based, it is guided but can also be steared with remode controll. It can defeat electronic jamming systems and cannot be thrown off course.
Further Iran uses Chinese C-802 adn silkworm missiles. It is not sure if Iran also uses C-803 but some say they do. But the C-802 is their main ship weapon as almost all their ships have it.
About the SAMS, the Alvand class frigates had SAMs but they have been removed because of their ineffectiveness (they were out of date) and Iran hasn't pu new ones on them, also they haven't but SAMs on their other ships.

[@@@@@!]

Iran's Navy Next best move;

Land base Naval Aviation ..... Havadaryaye zaminpayeh

got to get 120 Azarakhsh Naval version

deploy 20 along caspian sea

deploy 100 along persian gulf and sea of oman

with Naval capability radar and able to launch all AS missiles ....

Each Naval Aviation land base gets 10 planes ...

[Simple Bubba]

There are 2 Moudge class ships, both have a helicopter pad and are in Bandar Abbas but I don't know what the 2 2 ships are.

Those four you're probally looking at are Hengam LST (Hengam 511 (1973), Larak 512 (1975), Tonb 513 (1985), and Lavan 514 (1985))

Description:
Crew: 75
Displacement (tons): 2,490
Length Overall (m): 92.96
Beam (m): 14.94
Draft (m): 3
Speed (knots): 14.5
Range (nautical miles): INA
Propulsion: 4 diesels, 2 shafts, 5,800 bhp, 14.5 knots
Radars:
Aviation: aft helicopter deck
Well Deck: Tank deck: 39.6 x 8.8 meters
Troops: 168
Cargo: 600 tons

Weapons: (any on the below)
4 x dual 23 mm AA or 4 x 40-mm AA
1 x 122 mm RL
2 x 4-cell SA-7 SAM
12.7 mm MGs

[@@@@@!]

iran navy commander has been changed ...

[@@@@@!]

good link

http://www.daneshju.ir/forum/f345.html

[@@@@@!]

http://s2.supload.com/files/default/2144-20070808004223.jpg

is this yugo class ????

[@@@@@!]

http://64.40.99.49/Multimedia/pics/1386/4/Photo/825.jpg

what is the boat on the left

[Zraver]

http://64.40.99.49/Multimedia/pics/1386/4/Photo/825.jpg

what is the boat on the left

probably a pilots shuttle vessel. I thought at first it might be a bog hammer but it lacks the mounting points for a machine gun and has no forward deck access and is only wide enough for one man in the cabin.

I think the warship is a Houdong class missile boat.

[Kermanshah1]

Those four you're probally looking at are Hengam LST (Hengam 511 (1973), Larak 512 (1975), Tonb 513 (1985), and Lavan 514 (1985))

Description:
Crew: 75
Displacement (tons): 2,490
Length Overall (m): 92.96
Beam (m): 14.94
Draft (m): 3
Speed (knots): 14.5
Range (nautical miles): INA
Propulsion: 4 diesels, 2 shafts, 5,800 bhp, 14.5 knots
Radars:
Aviation: aft helicopter deck
Well Deck: Tank deck: 39.6 x 8.8 meters
Troops: 168
Cargo: 600 tons

Weapons: (any on the below)
4 x dual 23 mm AA or 4 x 40-mm AA
1 x 122 mm RL
2 x 4-cell SA-7 SAM
12.7 mm MGs

I don't know about that.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I don't know about that.

Just go on the web site that sells it and look at its stats there. Look for yourself, nobody here even knows what type of boat it is, get the official word.

[Kermanshah1]

I tried to post link(s) but I need 30 posts before I can post link(s).

Then quickly go and say 18 things.

[wmac]

http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8606310192

Commander of the Navy told production of Jamaran Destroyer and Peykan missle launcher ships are samples of our defence industry success.

Anyone has pictures of these?

Thank you

[Kermanshah1]

http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8606310192

Commander of the Navy told production of Jamaran Destroyer and Peykan missle launcher ships are samples of our defence industry success.

Anyone has pictures of these?

Thank you

I just found out about this and wanted to post it but saw you posted it. But this means Iran has a destroyer.:biggrin1:

[JanIran]

I just found out about this and wanted to post it but saw you posted it. But this means Iran has a destroyer.:biggrin1:

Yeah, you really need to post your first thread. :)
Btw, is he talking about the Kaman Class?

[Kermanshah1]

Yeah, you really need to post your first thread. :)
Btw, is he talking about the Kaman Class?

No the Jamaran class is not the same as the Kaman class. The only thing I'm wondering is: Is the Jamaran a real destroyer? Iran calls the Alvand and Moudge class frigates destroyers too. So is this actually a frigate or is it a real destroyer?

[Janbaz]

some new pictures of Iranian Navy/IRGC Navy

http://www.irna.ir/filesystem/86/07/01/906413-16-38.jpg

http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8607/ImageReports/8607030607/17_8607030607_L600.jpg


It says this is MOOJ:

http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8607/ImageReports/8607030607/5_8607030607_L600.jpg

[Kermanshah1]

Can anyone of you wich knows about this tell me is the Jamaran class destroyer a real destroyer or is it like the Moudge and Alvand class frigates that are called destroyer by Irans gouverment?

[Vladimir80]

can Iran make aircraft carrier?

Of course not... not even China can do that yet.

[Kermanshah1]

and Russia...?


They have one or they are still busy building it so yes they can.

[Vladimir80]

and Russia...?


Of course we have one in service and several we have or are selling.

[Kermanshah1]

how much aircraft carries has USA? and how much are present in the PERSIAN gulf?

They have got 12 and 3 are in the Persian gulf.

[Vladimir80]

They have got 12 and 3 are in the Persian gulf.

Actually they have 11 IIRC...

[Kermanshah1]

Actually they have 11 IIRC...

What happened to the other one?

[Vladimir80]

What happened to the other one?

JFK was decommed not too long ago. USN force structure wants money for DDG-1000 and more CG(X) surface comabents so they are sticking with 11 carriers.

[Supreme]

Does anyone have pix? and info about its Armament

[bug]

what's your wanted about jamaran(moj) ,what u search of jamaran pics?

[Kermanshah1]

what's your wanted about jamaran(moj) ,what u search of jamaran pics?

Is the Jamaran the same one as the Mowj/Mougde/Mowaj?

[bug]

some modification can creatd on alvand classes wad engaged on jamaran.
the leader pic
the toilet size
and....

[Kermanshah1]

some modification can creatd on alvand classes wad engaged on jamaran.
the leader pic
the toilet size
and....

Wait, is the Jamaran one of the moudge class frigates (moudge1 or moudge 2) or is it a separete ship meaning there are 3 ships in the class?

[Janbaz]

There are many pictures of Iranian Navy vessels posted in Iranian Navy Power - 2007 thread.

[bug]

I Hope This News Are Correct.
In My Memory,the Jamaran Are Copy Of Vosper Class.
Some Intelijent Modifiction Was Updsatet On That(like Lammers,fire Fithing,wepons And So On).
But I Dont Know About No2,no3,no4 And Other Wise If Produced!!

[Kermanshah1]

I Hope This News Are Correct.
In My Memory,the Jamaran Are Copy Of Vosper Class.
Some Intelijent Modifiction Was Updsatet On That(like Lammers,fire Fithing,wepons And So On).
But I Dont Know About No2,no3,no4 And Other Wise If Produced!!

You mean the Mowj class? People say it is a copy of the Alwand class but there is no proof of it at all. This I found out when making the wikipedia article about it, as everyone wich edits wikipedia knows (and people wich don't edit it don't know and try to deny) is that you have to provide sources and they added a [citation needed] to the statement that they are a development on the Alvand Class. As I was looking for sources to back up this statement I saw that this had never been said anywere else than on forums, so someone on a forum just spread this rumour and it is not based on anything.

Moudge/Mowj 1 was completed and entered service in 2006, the production of the Mowj 2 (wich is slightly different and has more advanced electronics) had started somewere in February 2007, so we'll see.

[Janbaz]

Iranian Underwater Warfare Capabilities

In early 2006, Iran successfully cracked down on virtually all Iranian military sites dedicated to uploading pictures and new military information online. Within weeks, the content of those sites dried up on search engines leaving only a few web cached versions of those cites to be reviewed. Today, only 2 Iranian military related sites exist, both of which block search crawlers, and neither of which use DNS to help conceal their locations. The information provided are sources to those sites, so take it or leave it as credible without links to additional commentary.

Mines and submarines are not easily addressed. Countering threats in underwater warfare requires time consuming training that the US most likely has not appropriately allocated for sufficient proficiency. I'm not the only one who believes this, constant pressures by environmental groups regarding sonar and exercises combined with lack of sufficient attention and focus by Navy commanders themselves are the source for most observers concerns.

In this regard, Iran operates a number (assumed somewhere around a dozen) of mini-submarines, 3 Kilo class submarines, and a number of different types of mines that create huge problems for any nation that engages Iran in combat.

Iranian Kilo class Submarines

Iran has 3 Kilo class submarines. The recently completed naval station on the Gulf of Oman port of Chahbahar can house all three submarines. With access to open water in the Gulf of Oman, the 3 kilo class submarines which would be difficult to use effectively in the Persian Gulf would be more effective in searching for deeper water targets on the eastern side of the Strait of Hormuz.

While the Kilo class submarines are not likely in good condition, they are an effective weapon, and their presence alone will force major adjustments in tactics by the US Navy. First the US Navy will likely be forced to keep carriers much further away than they normally would in the Gulf of Oman. It would also require a number of submarines to be dedicated to the location and neutralization of the Kilo threat.

The Kilo's, while potentially capable of firing anti-ship cruise missiles, would be less effective in this role. As a mine layer the Kilo's could deploy around 36 mines per sortie, and if mated with a merchant ship supplied with mines would be able to conduct 2-3 mine laying sorties per week. This scenario has not only been envisioned by US Navy planners, but is expected.

Iranian Mini-Submarines

Iran is currently known to have at least 3 different classes of mini-submarines, and at least 2 strange single class prototypes for utilization in the Gulf. These submarines are for the most part considered troublesome to operate, but would still likely be effective in limited roles for strike and mine laying, and would be very difficult to detect while submerged.

Iran is reported to have 2 Nahang (whale) class mini-submarines. These submarines, an interesting design for those with a sense of mini-submarine history, are noteworthy because they are the vehicle many experts believe is armed with the Shkval supercavitating torpedoes. Operated by the IRGC, the role is largely a guess, although some observers have questioned whether it would be used for extended surveillance and reconnaissance roles.

Iran is reported to have 5 Ghadir class mini-submarines. The Ghadir appears to be based on the Italian designed MG110 class mini-submarines in use by Pakistan. This class could probably operate close to an oil platform for an extended period of time, supported by a dive team, and conduct mine laying sorties that would be very difficult to detect up to 20nms from the platform.

Additionally Iran has recently received delivery of 4 mini-submarines from North Korea. There has been no mention as to class of submarine, but the smaller mini-submarines are supposedly for commando operation. Iran also operates several strange prototypes that may or may not be in service, but photography exists to their existence.

Sea Mines

Iran is thought to have the 4th largest sea mine inventory (around 5000) in the world behind the United States, Russia, and China. Up to 1000 of the sea mines are of the Chinese EM11 bottom-influence mine; the EM31 moored mine; and the EM52 rocket-propelled rising mine. All of these mines are of Chinese domestically produced designs, and the Chinese are the largest supplier of mines to Iran since 1998.

Lost in the shuffle of the Kilo class submarine purchase was the revelation in 2000 that Russia also sold Iran 1800 mines in the same purchase.

The most dangerous mine in the Iranian inventory is probably the EM-52. As a bottom dwelling rocket-propelled mine, up to 4 can be laid by a single small boat or dhow, and dispersed properly could heavily influence the channels in and out of the Persian Gulf.

While Kilo class submarines, mini-submarines, and mines represent the threats underwater from a technology perspective, Iran has a number of specialized commando diving teams (including specially trained mammals) that could potentially be very dangerous as well.


http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/09/5th-fleet-focus-iranian-underwater.html (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/09/5th-fleet-focus-iranian-underwater.html)

[Nubian Warrior]

Iranian Underwater Warfare Capabilities

In early 2006, Iran successfully cracked down on virtually all Iranian military sites dedicated to uploading pictures and new military information online. Within weeks, the content of those sites dried up on search engines leaving only a few web cached versions of those cites to be reviewed. Today, only 2 Iranian military related sites exist, both of which block search crawlers, and neither of which use DNS to help conceal their locations. The information provided are sources to those sites, so take it or leave it as credible without links to additional commentary.

Mines and submarines are not easily addressed. Countering threats in underwater warfare requires time consuming training that the US most likely has not appropriately allocated for sufficient proficiency. I'm not the only one who believes this, constant pressures by environmental groups regarding sonar and exercises combined with lack of sufficient attention and focus by Navy commanders themselves are the source for most observers concerns.

In this regard, Iran operates a number (assumed somewhere around a dozen) of mini-submarines, 3 Kilo class submarines, and a number of different types of mines that create huge problems for any nation that engages Iran in combat.

Iranian Kilo class Submarines

Iran has 3 Kilo class submarines. The recently completed naval station on the Gulf of Oman port of Chahbahar can house all three submarines. With access to open water in the Gulf of Oman, the 3 kilo class submarines which would be difficult to use effectively in the Persian Gulf would be more effective in searching for deeper water targets on the eastern side of the Strait of Hormuz.

While the Kilo class submarines are not likely in good condition, they are an effective weapon, and their presence alone will force major adjustments in tactics by the US Navy. First the US Navy will likely be forced to keep carriers much further away than they normally would in the Gulf of Oman. It would also require a number of submarines to be dedicated to the location and neutralization of the Kilo threat.

The Kilo's, while potentially capable of firing anti-ship cruise missiles, would be less effective in this role. As a mine layer the Kilo's could deploy around 36 mines per sortie, and if mated with a merchant ship supplied with mines would be able to conduct 2-3 mine laying sorties per week. This scenario has not only been envisioned by US Navy planners, but is expected.

Iranian Mini-Submarines

Iran is currently known to have at least 3 different classes of mini-submarines, and at least 2 strange single class prototypes for utilization in the Gulf. These submarines are for the most part considered troublesome to operate, but would still likely be effective in limited roles for strike and mine laying, and would be very difficult to detect while submerged.

Iran is reported to have 2 Nahang (whale) class mini-submarines. These submarines, an interesting design for those with a sense of mini-submarine history, are noteworthy because they are the vehicle many experts believe is armed with the Shkval supercavitating torpedoes. Operated by the IRGC, the role is largely a guess, although some observers have questioned whether it would be used for extended surveillance and reconnaissance roles.

Iran is reported to have 5 Ghadir class mini-submarines. The Ghadir appears to be based on the Italian designed MG110 class mini-submarines in use by Pakistan. This class could probably operate close to an oil platform for an extended period of time, supported by a dive team, and conduct mine laying sorties that would be very difficult to detect up to 20nms from the platform.

Additionally Iran has recently received delivery of 4 mini-submarines from North Korea. There has been no mention as to class of submarine, but the smaller mini-submarines are supposedly for commando operation. Iran also operates several strange prototypes that may or may not be in service, but photography exists to their existence.

Sea Mines

Iran is thought to have the 4th largest sea mine inventory (around 5000) in the world behind the United States, Russia, and China. Up to 1000 of the sea mines are of the Chinese EM11 bottom-influence mine; the EM31 moored mine; and the EM52 rocket-propelled rising mine. All of these mines are of Chinese domestically produced designs, and the Chinese are the largest supplier of mines to Iran since 1998.

Lost in the shuffle of the Kilo class submarine purchase was the revelation in 2000 that Russia also sold Iran 1800 mines in the same purchase.

The most dangerous mine in the Iranian inventory is probably the EM-52. As a bottom dwelling rocket-propelled mine, up to 4 can be laid by a single small boat or dhow, and dispersed properly could heavily influence the channels in and out of the Persian Gulf.

While Kilo class submarines, mini-submarines, and mines represent the threats underwater from a technology perspective, Iran has a number of specialized commando diving teams (including specially trained mammals) that could potentially be very dangerous as well.


http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/09/5th-fleet-focus-iranian-underwater.html (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/09/5th-fleet-focus-iranian-underwater.html)

Great info. But do you know if any of the kilo-class subs have sea to air missiles like the sa-8 or sa-10 for protection? I understand that the Soviet era kilo-class subs do while some of the export versions may not.

[Kermanshah1]

I went and looked for all pics of known Iranian Warships and these ones I found:

Frigates:

Alvand Class:


IRIS Alvand:


http://images.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/gallery/india_naval_review/0101236.jpg
IRIS Alvand is the right one, the left one is a Bangladeshi Warship.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/Fleet/alihaider-alvand.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/IS_Alvand_(F-71)_1977.jpg/750px-IS_Alvand_(F-71)_1977.jpg

http://www.midwaysailor.com/ships/alvand01b.jpg

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/Fleet/alvand-gomati.jpg

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=60646


IRIS Sabalan

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/IS_Sabalan_%28F-73%29_1977.jpg/800px-IS_Sabalan_%28F-73%29_1977.jpg


IRIS Sahand

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/IS_Sahand_%28F-74%29_1977.jpg/800px-IS_Sahand_%28F-74%29_1977.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Bild-Prayingmantis5sahand.jpg/800px-Bild-Prayingmantis5sahand.jpg :(
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/OperationPrayingMantis-IS_Alvand.jpg/800px-OperationPrayingMantis-IS_Alvand.jpg :(


Moudge I

http://img330.imageshack.us/img330/4263/frigatemowaj4hu.png

[Kermanshah1]

Other

Hamzeh class Corvette
http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8506/ImageReports/8506290462/14_8506290462_L600.jpg

Houdong class missile boats
IRIS Me'raj
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200604/04/images/mm3.jpg
IRIS Hadid
http://img315.imageshack.us/img315/6531/sthondor11yh.png

Kaman/Sina class missile boats
IRIS Paykan
http://www.diomil.ir/images/product/Original/mig/sina.jpg
IRIS Samshir
http://images.scotsman.com/2005/11/12/12boatb.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Iran_Navy.jpg
http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/7247/skamannotemissiles4ji.png

Bandar Abbas class Support ships
IRIS Bandar Abbbas and IRIS Lavan in India
http://mod.nic.in/samachar/april1-06/image_n%5C9a.gif

[rabs]

Are you sure the first 2 aren't pictures of 2 burke class?

I am fairly certain they are USN ships.

[Kermanshah1]

Are you sure the first 2 aren't pictures of 2 burke class?

The site were I found them said Alvand class, and the number (71) is the number of the IRIS Alvand, but now you say it they might look a lil different...