WARPAC vs. NATO-thread

[Rss]

USSR sure helped out the Afghan people all right. That actually made me laugh.

Saddam made Chem-Weapons out of common everyday chemicals that are legal to purchase anywhere. Shi- I could make one out of bleach I bought at a Yankee Supermarket. Can you get bleach in USSR?

Did you even read that link? Sure, try to make sarin gas, VX and mustard gas out of typical household goods. The fact is that US sold Iraq chemical weapons and knew that they would use it.

 

[thedonster]

Wow, you guys are clueless. Afghan goverment ASKED USSR to help out with fundamentalist mujahideen guerillas.

Right, like the USSR was "asked" to invade Hungary.
Just who is clueless here? The USSR's conduct in Afghanistan was indefensible. By trying to defend it you only make yourself look foolish. You've had some intelligent things to say in this discussion before now, but blind defence of the USSR and everything it did makes you look clueless.

 

[Rss]

Right, like the USSR was "asked" to invade Hungary.
Just who is clueless here? The USSR's conduct in Afghanistan was indefensible. By trying to defend it you only make yourself look foolish. You've had some intelligent things to say in this discussion before now, but blind defence of the USSR and everything it did makes you look clueless.

I'm not blindly defending USSR. As a matter of fact, I have many things I should criticise about it. The problem is that you guys don't see the other side of the conflict. For example, say Hungary. You guys just see the fearless freedom fighters molotov'ing soviet tanks. You don't see that soviets only came in when hungarians started attacking soviet-hungarian establishments and lynching people. Read the book about subject, Kapina joka kukistettiin by Sakari Selin (not sure if it's translated).

 

[thedonster]

I'm not blindly defending USSR. . You don't see that soviets only came in when hungarians started attacking soviet-hungarian establishments and lynching people.

Once again you're defending the indefensible. At least you're not claiming the invasion was "military assistance" this time!
As I understand it, The Soviets (read Russians) agreed to leave Hungary after negotiations with the legitimate Hungarian government, then double crossed them by regrouping and invading.
The claim that the invasion was to protect "soviet-hungarian establishments" is spurious and echoes the pretexts Hitler made when he occupied the Sudetenland.

 

[Rss]

Once again you're defending the indefensible. At least you're not claiming the invasion was "military assistance" this time!
As I understand it, The Soviets (read Russians) agreed to leave Hungary after negotiations with the legitimate Hungarian government, then double crossed them by regrouping and invading.
The claim that the invasion was to protect "soviet-hungarian establishments" is spurious and echoes the pretexts Hitler made when he occupied the Sudetenland.

Once again you are seeing things black and white. I happen to know this hungarian guy who lives in Netherlands now. He was forced to leave not because he resisted goverment or anything but because he was a jew. He said that it was mostly hungarians killing hungarians, soviets had little part in it. Also, I don't understand what you mean by doublecrossing. Now, if you feel urge to answer me, PM. Let's not take this any further on this thread.


Anyways, what do you say about Caspian Sea Monster, ekranoplan?

It had a payload of thousand tons of cargo and could travel over 400 km/h.

 

[mat69]

And with nukes in account I say Soviet would have won.

With won you mean that the people in the main cities were only killed 3 times compared to 4? (note figures are fictitious)

the fact that it [note: T90] weights less (46,5 ton) then the Leo2 (62 ton), M1 (63 ton) and challanger 2 (62,5 ton) will give it a edge in mobility because it will have less tendency to get stuck in soft and muddy terrain.

For that you would have to compare the psi ratings of the tanks to get meaningfull figures.
Btw. what's so crapish about the Strv 103?


On the political "stuff":
There is no country around that can tag itself ethical.
Neither the US' nor Russia's and many wester countries' weapon exporting policies are without their "flaws" or better all are ****ed up.
One of the best examples is the first Gulf War (with that I mean Iraq vs Iran). Many countries supported both with their weapons, the US provided chemical weapons alternatively the logistics to create them...

In the second Gulf War it is very interesting what happened after Saddam surrendered. How the coaliation troops allowed the defeating of the uprisings. Even the US commander was surprised - sorry forgot how the documentary was called I got this from - as he received the order to stop and give the Iraqis more confessions than he ever imagined.

It is also interesting that the picture of the Soviet Union is better than it should be imo. Imo Russia were no liberators in WW2 and later but occupiers. Look at the Czech Republic eg. one of the progressivest states and democrazies before WW2 and then it's role in the Soviet Union.

If you do some research you will come to the conclusion that those countries that have a constant membership in the security council produce and export most of the weapons (~90-95% IIRC) in the world.
Additionally organisations like the CIA as well as many governments aided dictatorships or even created them like in Chile.

You can not say you are morally superior and to me it seems that some act that way here in this thread.

Edit:

The claim that the invasion was to protect "soviet-hungarian establishments" is spurious and echoes the pretexts Hitler made when he occupied the Sudetenland.

Vietnam War rings a bell? Supporting dicatorships in Vietnam, Kambodscha ("they called for our help bla bla insert standard laughable justification here") ... and then leaving the mess behind?
On a side note, you know more drugs than ever are produced in Afghanistan right now. The US tried to fight drugs for decades in South America, and now, then they are on the source of one kind of drugs it gets worse. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Fu. Svedberg]

With won you mean that the people in the main cities were only killed 3 times compared to 4? (note figures are fictitious)

More or less yes

Btw. what's so crapish about the Strv 103?

First off a towerless construction the idea not all that bad for a tank that plays a defensive role but still needs to be stationary if you even want to have a chance to fire back somewhat accuratly.

Elevation of the gun was by the hyudralic suspension on the tank which gives very limited elevation. Also the suspention ****ed and tended to leak out all the oil.

Gas turbine engine that was to weak, consumed alot of fuel and gave a huge heat signature (also there was roumors about it being hard to start in winter conditions (FFS it was constructed here in sweden!) ). Must be mentioned that later someone came to their senses and retrofitted it with a piston engine for it's last years in service.

The stuff that was good with Strv 103:

Low profile.

Ehhh...

6510 mm long cannon

 

[thedonster]

Vietnam War rings a bell? Supporting dicatorships in Vietnam, Kambodscha ("they called for our help bla bla insert standard laughable justification here") ... and then leaving the mess behind?
.

As you appear to have failed to notice, I'm Canadian, not American. Last time I checked Canada wasn't involved in the Vietnam war.

 

[mat69]

As you appear to have failed to notice, I'm Canadian, not American. Last time I checked Canada wasn't involved in the Vietnam war.

Did I ever say you were US-American?

 

[thedonster]

Did I ever say you were US-American?

No, you just started on some tangential anti-US quasi-rant which linked to my comment and implied that I am, so I thought I would point out that it bore no more relevance to me than it did to the subject at hand.

 

[mat69]

No, you just started on some tangential anti-US quasi-rant which implied that I am, so I thought I would point out that it bore no more relevance to me than it did to the subject at hand.

Well you think that that was the intention, while it wasn't.

It was only a reference that many countries use the same ways to justify whatever they please.
So it should have been something more connected with "There is no country around that can tag itself ethical." than your citizenship that does not really play a role imo - while your opinion does.

 

[{YBBS}Sage]

No, you just started on some tangential anti-US quasi-rant which linked to my comment and implied that I am, so I thought I would point out that it bore no more relevance to me than it did to the subject at hand.

Welcome to RO Forum... home of the tangential anti-US rant. Very annoying...

Oh, and Rss really does wish he lived in the old USSR. He'll say otherwise, but don't believe it.

 

[Rss]

Welcome to RO Forum... home of the tangential anti-US rant. Very annoying...

Oh, and Rss really does wish he lived in the old USSR. He'll say otherwise, but don't believe it.

Yeah! Totally right! I'd like to live in post-Red Alert 2 style USSR where US was liek run over and commies rule!1 Liek totally sweet!

Grow up, and get used to criticism. Youll face a lot of it.

 

[{YBBS}Sage]

You don't critisize. All you do is say "US sukcs" and intersperse it with "USSR was soooooo awesome."

Go beat to your Gorbachev pic, troll.

 

[Rss]

You don't critisize. All you do is say "US sukcs" and intersperse it with "USSR was soooooo awesome."

Go beat to your Gorbachev pic, troll.

Fine, have it your way. But unleash you angst into PMs.


Bolt, if you read this thread can you translate this link:
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90vsabrams.htm
It has too many military terms for me.

 

[Bolt]

I mean, my God!!!
Guys, I'm so fecking.. annoyed, not even angry. And you say that this forum is a constant US-bash? Have a look at this thread! yeah, right, US-bash...

GUYS. FOR THE LAST TIME: THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MILITARY STUFF, NOT POLITICAL. SO LET'S DISCUSS THE TOPIC!

But I have to comment the stuppidest statements, sorry, and then I will quit.

People were lucky to be issued shoes that fit

My parents were issued 3-room flat for free. "You work? You have 2 kids? Here ya go, sign here and here - a new flat". And I'm talking about 1987, the end of the Soviet Union.

Last I checked, the CIA was one of the weapons USA deploys to fight our enemies, so how can you separate them from the argument?

Last time I checked, it was intelegence agency, as FBI etc. Also, it was only US agency, not NATO *points at the thread's topic* You sound like answering to a phrase: "We have the best weapons" with "So what? And we are filthy rich" in a weapon's topic.

You should travel to the USA sometime, you might find that (especially in Ca.) it is one of the most friendly, open-minded places in the World.

You should have a visit to Russia and see for yourself that it's not a some sort of Mordor.

at least we don't use chemical weapons in Iraq, like the USSR used in Afghanistan.

Rss already pointed out that it was your gas who killed those thousands of Kurds. And I would like to see some sources about SU gasing afganis, please.

Abetter question would be, where did Saddam get his delivery systems...ie missiles and arty to deliver Chem-Weapons? Could it have been USSR?

What's a bigger crime: to sell a chemical gas or to sell simple rocket launcher (as Katyusha etc), which can be then modificated to deliver that gas? When US will attack IRan, I'm sure there will be hundreds of "Those damned commies sold S-300 to Iran!! How could they??".

Here, stupidest statements are depleted. I will now comment some other ideas.

Right, like the USSR was "asked" to invade Hungary.

Now, this is VERY important! Guys, I would like You to read this. I would thank you if you do it. http://shurigin.livejournal.com/82995.html#cutid1 In Russian, so please, don't be lazy and use some online translator, this article is an extremly good history topic about those days. Please, don't be lazy. I even provide you with good translator: http://translation.paralink.com/ If some one read it, at least one person, I will be happy.

You don't critisize. All you do is say "US sukcs" and intersperse it with "USSR was soooooo awesome

Look at your comrade BuddyLee. And compare him to Rss...

Now, can we get back to the topic? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6suKiXqPNfE&mode=related&search= Here's a good video of missle launcher Smerch (Tornado).
And a "Russian military vid" - some nice views there, imo, fun to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9jQSfnWsnw&mode=related&search=

2Rss
Will do, but I will start at Thursday, i can't do it earlier as a I have control work after control work..

 

[Bolt]

Mi-24 Hind, English documentary
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8Mpe1zl81Q&mode=related&search=
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQn39qQ_d_c&mode=related&search=
And here's another video about this heli.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLOXRQzkFCc&watch_response

And here's a video about Ka-50 Black Shark. Russians use this helicopter for special operations in Chechnya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEULmkKbw0Y

 

[BuddyLee]

I bet your shoes still don't fit. Don't deny the truth about the past you can't burry it.

Are you freakin kidding me? Do you think the KGB and CIA never killed anyone in the Cold War? Both Agencies are weapons.

Russia is Mordor compared to Northern Cali. I say this with Pride, and I know 95% of the people on Earth, given the choice between the two locations would agree with me, and move here. Not just because of the natural beauty, but because of a lifestyle that was made possible by the Triumph of NATO over Warpac.

We didn't give Saddam ready to use mustard gas and shi-, he made it himself, and USSR was worse in the matter because they sold him the means by which to deploy chems, a technology that is a lot harder to develop than simple chem agents themselves.

Rss failed and so do you.<---fail

 

[RedGuardist]

Russia is Mordor compared to Northern Cali. I say this with Pride, and I know 95% of the people on Earth, given the choice between the two locations would agree with me, and move here. Not just because of the natural beauty, but because of a lifestyle that was made possible by the Triumph of NATO over Warpac.

of topic

And thanks to that lifestyle, the world is coming to an end (though it`s not all your foult, at least you and Arnie are trying to do something down Northern Cali. Thanks for that) .

It sure is blessing, that all the people in the world do not live like people in Norther Cali. We would only need about 200 globes to support that.

of topic

 

[BuddyLee]

And I would like to see some sources about SU gasing afganis, please.

What's a bigger crime: to sell a chemical gas or to sell simple rocket launcher (as Katyusha etc), which can be then modificated to deliver that gas? When US will attack IRan, I'm sure there will be hundreds of "Those damned commies sold S-300 to Iran!! How could they??".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/cs-invasion.htm
The Soviet Union is believed to have an 80,000 man chemical and biological warfare establishment with specialist chemical defense units attached to divisions, battalions, and companies. Although the Soviets have described the main role of these forces as defensive, there have been many and varied reports of chemical weapon attacks by Soviet troops against guerrilla forces in Afghanistan. The United States Department of State reported that chemical bombs supplied by the Soviet Union were used against guerrillas in November 1978, even before the Soviet invasion. The State Department received reports of 47 different chemical attacks between mid 1979 and mid 1981, resulting in a death toll of more than 3,000. Thirty six of these reports were from Afghan army deserters, guerrillas, journalists, and physicians. Another serious report came from an Afghan army defector who gave the Far Eastern Economic Review details of Soviet supplied chemical and biological agents being used by Afghan army units. Although the veracity of the report was supported by its extensive detail, a number of questions remained.
Other reports by foreign journalists abound, and they suggest that the Soviets have used chemical weapons from helicopter units to drive guerrillas from caves or other dwellings in order to attack them with conventional weapons. In general, the numerous reports of chemical and biological agents being used against Afghan guerrillas, from a wide variety of sources, suggest that Soviet use of such materials may be extensive but remains highly selective. There have been reports by Afghan resistance leaders of decreased use of such agents, and, although a State Department report of February 21, 1984, charged the Soviets with more uses of chemical weapons, it did state that, contrary to previous years, the Soviet use of chemical weapons in 1983 "could not be confirmed as valid."




I'm sure if the people who were gassed had lived, they would confirm these attacks.



One weapon that appeared to have been specifically designed for use in Afghanistan is the "butterfly" mine with a "wing" that makes it look like a butterfly or a sycamore seed and allows it to spin slowly to the ground when dropped from the air. Made of green or brown plastic and powerful enough to blow off a foot or a hand, these mines seem to have been designed to blend in with the terrain and to maim rather than kill, although the inaccessibility of medical facilities means that many victims of these mines die of infection or loss of blood." ...The use of these "butterfly" mines is banned by the Geneva Convention, which specifically forbids combatants to use mines that cannot be detected by normal means and that have an unlimited lifespan."...Fullerton says that there was "little doubt that mines could last a decade and were a threat to children and livestock especially."



I have seen these mine of Free Speech TV, they are made to look like a children's toy, sickening.