Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Share

    nastle77

    Posts : 211
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Osa boats vs Israeli navy

    Post  nastle77 on Sat 6 Aug 2016 - 10:55

    What was the reason the Osa boats of Egypt perform so poorly against the Israeli navy ?
    And during the cold war if the performance of Osa boats was so appalling against MGB of westers navies what were the primary means of countering enemy MGB in the Soviet navy
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3756
    Points : 3855
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  kvs on Sun 7 Aug 2016 - 18:19

    nastle77 wrote:What was the reason the Osa boats of Egypt perform so poorly against the Israeli navy ?
    And during the cold war if the performance of Osa boats was so appalling against MGB of westers navies what were the primary means of countering enemy MGB in the Soviet navy

    Perhaps the competence of the people operating those boats may have something to do with how they "perform".
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7111
    Points : 7383
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  sepheronx on Sun 7 Aug 2016 - 22:40

    take into account that Israel was probably more or less prepared cause they were hit before hand by the missiles. At the same time too, they were deploying more CIWS for their ships. Of course that doesn't cause 100% protection but as you said, depending on competence, they could have saturated the attack.

    nastle77

    Posts : 211
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    What was the reason the Osa boats of Egypt perform so poorly against the Israeli navy ?

    Post  nastle77 on Sun 14 Aug 2016 - 8:32

    sepheronx wrote:take into account that Israel was probably more or less prepared cause they were hit before hand by the missiles.  At the same time too, they were deploying more CIWS for their ships.  Of course that doesn't cause 100% protection but as you said, depending on competence, they could have saturated the attack.
    could it also be that the Termits export version had no IR versions and had down graded seekers ?
    Also it seemed like most OSA were lost when they expended their missiles and were caught by israeli boats and were dispatched by 76 mm gunfire
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1661
    Points : 1656
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue 30 May 2017 - 15:41

    After watching some documentaries i realized that the event of the middle east conflicts particularly The 6 day war, The October war and especially The battle of the Golan Heights were/is still considered by many as the decisive evidence of the worthlessness of Soviet weaponry and equipment of that era.
    So i decided that there should be a dedicated thread to discuss this.

    So here's the question guys, what the hell was going on??
    Was it poor Soviet exports or simply incredibly incompetent Arabs or something else?

    nastle77

    Posts : 211
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  nastle77 on Fri 9 Jun 2017 - 13:07

    AlfaT8 wrote:After watching some documentaries i realized that the event of the middle east conflicts particularly The 6 day war, The October war and especially The battle of the Golan Heights were/is still considered by many as the decisive evidence of the worthlessness of Soviet weaponry and equipment of that era.
    So i decided that there should be a dedicated thread to discuss this.

    So here's the question guys, what the hell was going on??
    Was it poor Soviet exports or simply incredibly incompetent Arabs or something else?

    https://www.amazon.com/Arabs-War-Military-Effectiveness-1948-1991/dp/0803287836
    explained here in detail

    primarily arab military system

    remember in 1948 and 1956 wars a lot of equipment with arabs was western and very little soviet esp in 48
    plus israel has NO US equipment in those wars yet they still trounce the arabs

    so you get the idea
    avatar
    starman

    Posts : 237
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-08-10

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  starman on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 13:33

    nastle77 wrote:

    primarily arab military system

    I've had Pollack's book a long time and agree poor leadership, on both the tactical and strategic levels, was the main issue. It should be noted, however, that Israel's western tanks and jets had a qualitative edge over those supplied by the USSR to the arabs. Israeli Mirages and F-4s, for example, had weapons far superior to those of Soviet MIGs.



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18381
    Points : 18939
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  GarryB on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 20:52

    It should be noted, however, that Israel's western tanks and jets had a qualitative edge over those supplied by the USSR to the arabs. Israeli Mirages and F-4s, for example, had weapons far superior to those of Soviet MIGs.

    So what you are saying is that if the Arabs had those western weapons with the minor qualitative edge, and the Israelis had Soviet weapons the Arabs would have won?

    Do you really think that if Iraq had M1 Abrams tanks in Desert Storm that the Iraqis would have won against half the world?

    The German tanks at the start of WWII were shit... Panzer IIs and Panzer IIIs were crap by any definition, except by their design that suited the superior tactics of the Germans.

    Several Soviet and even French tanks were vastly superior in terms of weapons and armour, yet often they had a two man crew where the commander was gunner and loader when he should have been looking for targets and directing the driver from cover to cover...

    avatar
    starman

    Posts : 237
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-08-10

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  starman on Wed 18 Apr 2018 - 8:59

    GarryB wrote:
    So what you are saying is that if the Arabs had those western weapons with the minor qualitative edge, and the Israelis had Soviet weapons the Arabs would have won?


    Well like I said above, the main arab problem was leadership. But while weapon quality was secondary it was still a factor. I don't know if the qualitative edge of western weapons in the Mideast wars should be characterized as minor. Cooper's books on Arab MIGs show the degree to which IAF F-4s and other platforms were superior to their arab opponents, in terms of # and quality of missiles carried, radar, endurance etc. And the books I have cover the period prior to the '82 Lebanon war, when F-15s further widened the gap.

    Do you really think that if Iraq had M1 Abrams tanks in Desert Storm that the Iraqis would have won against half the world?

    Laughing No, but their performance probably would've improved. An American claimed the US would've won even if the equipment had been swapped. Maybe so, but it wouldn't have been such a cakewalk. The M1 was vastly superior to the monkey model T-72. The laser ranging system was so complicated the Iraqis didn't even know how to use it. (The M1 system was easier to use; maybe they could've mastered that. Smile ) The Iraqis had to use a default range... Many times they just didn't fire and even if they hit an M1 their rounds couldn't penetrate its front armor.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12030
    Points : 12513
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  George1 on Wed 18 Apr 2018 - 15:20

    Ι think the main reason was experience. When was the last time arab countries have fought a war before 1967?
    avatar
    starman

    Posts : 237
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-08-10

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  starman on Thu 19 Apr 2018 - 6:00

    George1 wrote:Ι think the main reason was experience. When was the last time arab countries have fought a war before 1967?

    Egyptians and others had some experience fighting with the British in WWII, in the 1948 war with Israel, in the '56 war, and in the Yemen war.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Operation Rimon 20

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu 19 Apr 2018 - 15:42

    Russophobes use this israeli military operation to "prove" that arab incompetence had nothing to do with their defeat, but instead it was because soviet equipment was inferior.

    In this battle supposedly elite soviet pilots were all shot down by israeli jets who never suffered a single loss against soviet pilots. Did this battle happen, and if yes, what do you make of it?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18381
    Points : 18939
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  GarryB on Thu 19 Apr 2018 - 22:17

    Cooper's books on Arab MIGs show the degree to which IAF F-4s and other platforms were superior to their arab opponents,

    Tom Cooper?

    Those F-4s were also superior to North Vietnamese MiGs, yet a few F-4s didn't make it home...

    No, but their performance probably would've improved.

    Why do you think that? Are you assuming because they would have western equipment they would have better training, or are you assuming western weapons are just easier to use effectively?

    When led by special forces and given air support the Afghans routed the Taleban pretty well, and in Syria with US support the ISIS forces routed the Syrian army forces pretty damn quick, yet with Russian support the Syrians seem to have defeated ISIS in turn...

    The M1 was vastly superior to the monkey model T-72. The laser ranging system was so complicated the Iraqis didn't even know how to use it. (The M1 system was easier to use; maybe they could've mastered that. Smile ) The Iraqis had to use a default range... Many times they just didn't fire and even if they hit an M1 their rounds couldn't penetrate its front armor.

    And if the Iraqis got ammo that could destroy an M1 from 5km how many M1s do you think the US would have lost?

    Do you think they would have just used more air power? or less?

    The Vietnamese didn't have superior weapons to the US... sometimes they didn't even have enough food let alone ammo or weapons... yet they kept fighting even after the US was carpet bombing the north in what would today be considered a war crime... can you tell me which war the Soviets bombed civilian cities to get their enemy to come to the negotiating table. They certainly bombed German cities, but that was retribution for all the Soviet cities the Germans destroyed.

    Suggest anyone interested in the performance of Soviet SAMs in south east asia and the middle east read this:

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu 19 Apr 2018 - 22:37

    Russophobes use this israeli military operation to "prove" that arab incompetence had nothing to do with their defeat, but instead it was because soviet equipment was inferior.

    In this battle supposedly elite soviet pilots were all shot down by israeli jets who never suffered a single loss against soviet pilots. Did this battle happen, and if yes, what do you make of it?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

    avatar
    starman

    Posts : 237
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-08-10

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  starman on Fri 20 Apr 2018 - 6:26

    GarryB wrote:
    Tom Cooper?

    Sure.

    Those F-4s were also superior to North Vietnamese MiGs, yet a few F-4s didn't make it home...

    I understand early in the war the US neglected dogfighting skills but they improved.


    Why do you think that? Are you assuming because they would have western equipment they would have better training, or are you assuming western weapons are just easier to use effectively?

    The M1 was just so superior, in terms of survivability and lethality. Target detection was much safer (passive IR instead of active) and ranging was easier than in a T-72.


    And if the Iraqis got ammo that could destroy an M1 from 5km how many M1s do you think the US would have lost?

    Probably not many. Zaloga said the T-72s hit M1s on only about seven occasions. "Better ammo would've helped....but the main problem was lack of hits."


    The Vietnamese didn't have superior weapons to the US... sometimes they didn't even have enough food let alone ammo or weapons... yet they kept fighting even after the US was carpet bombing the north in what would today be considered a war crime...

    It helped them that the US was engaged in counterinsurgency not the conventional war it had been trained to fight and unlike in the Mideast, there were a lot more places to hide. The US even used defoliants...
    avatar
    starman

    Posts : 237
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-08-10

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  starman on Fri 20 Apr 2018 - 6:40

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Russophobes use this israeli military operation to "prove" that arab incompetence had nothing to do with their defeat, but instead it was because soviet equipment was inferior.

    Absurd. Arab leadership was often abysmal, leading to a lot of mistakes.

    In this battle supposedly elite soviet pilots were all shot down by israeli jets who never suffered a single loss against soviet pilots. Did this battle happen, and if yes, what do you make of it?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

    Of course it happened. The Israelis, even the EAF by then, had a lot more experience than the Russians. But I don't think the pilots lost were elite.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri 20 Apr 2018 - 9:16

    The IAF was suffering from interceptions, before they retaliated against the Soviets. This became worse after the "retaliation".

    A war is a long course action.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 140
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri 20 Apr 2018 - 12:39

    GarryB wrote:


    can you tell me which war the Soviets bombed civilian cities to get their enemy to come to the negotiating table. They certainly bombed German cities, but that was retribution for all the Soviet cities the Germans destroyed.


    The Soviets bombed Afghan 'cities' in the 1980s:

    http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/da/ada.html
    http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/su24/su24.html


    Last edited by BlackArrow on Fri 20 Apr 2018 - 17:03; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri 20 Apr 2018 - 14:30

    starman wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Russophobes use this israeli military operation to "prove" that arab incompetence had nothing to do with their defeat, but instead it was because soviet equipment was inferior.

    Absurd. Arab leadership was often abysmal, leading to a lot of mistakes.

    In this battle supposedly elite soviet pilots were all shot down by israeli jets who never suffered a single loss against soviet pilots. Did this battle happen, and if yes, what do you make of it?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

    Of course it happened. The Israelis, even the EAF by then, had a lot more experience than the Russians. But I don't think the pilots lost were elite.

    Do you think it happened because of the F-4's superiority was a factor? Also what do you mean even the EAF had more experience? Are you saying the soviets couldnt fly their own aircraft correctly?
    avatar
    starman

    Posts : 237
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-08-10

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  starman on Sat 21 Apr 2018 - 6:37

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Do you think it happened because of the F-4's superiority was a factor?

    I think IAF Mirages scored most of the kills. From what I've read, their missiles were better than Soviet atolls. But the main reason for the defeat, or the lopsided resiult, was simply that the Soviets fell into a trap.

    Also what do you mean even the EAF had more experience? Are you saying the soviets couldnt fly their own aircraft correctly?

    Laughing I meant more experience in fighting the IAF. Interestingly, in one of his volumes on Arab MIGs, Cooper says the Egyptians were the first to use the ambush tactic, late in '68, when, he wrote, EAF MIGs got four Mirages. But the Israelis used the tactic on many subsequent occasions, including September 1973 when SAF MIGs were ambushed.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18381
    Points : 18939
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  GarryB on Sat 21 Apr 2018 - 6:59

    Sure.

    My experience with chatting to him on Keymags forum is that he is your average American ex navy guy with all the usual bias you would expect... the only unusual thing about him is that he wasn't anti Iranian like most Americans...

    Otherwise F-14 and F-4 were fucking perfect and Soviet stuff was all crap.

    I understand early in the war the US neglected dogfighting skills but they improved.

    So you are saying that skills in usage are just as important as super planes?

    The M1 was just so superior, in terms of survivability and lethality. Target detection was much safer (passive IR instead of active) and ranging was easier than in a T-72.

    Except the enormous cost of them would mean they would only have a small fraction of M1s in service and most of their tank fleet would have been M60s...

    The few Abrams tanks they would have had could have been destroyed easily with air power if it was deems effective enough to make a difference.

    Probably not many. Zaloga said the T-72s hit M1s on only about seven occasions. "Better ammo would've helped....but the main problem was lack of hits."

    Zaloga is not a great source either, but most of the problem was that the US used its advantages to the full... attack at night when US platforms have the advantage... I have read the ammo used by the Iraqis being called no better than training ammo by people familiar with Soviet ammo. Does not inspire confidence.

    It helped them that the US was engaged in counterinsurgency not the conventional war it had been trained to fight and unlike in the Mideast, there were a lot more places to hide. The US even used defoliants...

    Shame the US military is nothing like what it is portrayed in hollywood movies, otherwise hiding within the local population would have kept them safe too. Unfortunately the US military does not care about the local population so a kill is a kill... even if you have to raise the entire city to do it.

    The Soviets bombed Afghan 'cities' in the 1980s:

    Hahaahaha.... yes bombs were dropped on cities, but how many cities did they obliterate with thousand bomber raids like the west loved to do?

    I am talking carpet bombing... a method invented in the west... the fire bombing of Dresden type stuff they did in Korea and North Vietnam...

    avatar
    starman

    Posts : 237
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-08-10

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  starman on Sat 21 Apr 2018 - 8:24

    GarryB wrote:My experience with chatting to him on Keymags forum is that he is your average American ex navy guy with all the usual bias you would expect... the only unusual thing about him is that he wasn't anti Iranian like most Americans...

    He's surprisingly favorable to arabs whereas most Americans are "brainwashed by ZOG."


    So you are saying that skills in usage are just as important as super planes?

    Certainly they're both important.


    Except the enormous cost of them would mean they would only have a small fraction of M1s in service and most of their tank fleet would have been M60s...

    Sort of like in real life--the Iraqis had around 4,000 tanks, only a quarter of them T-72s. But a comparable number of M1s could've been dangerous.

    The few Abrams tanks they would have had could have been destroyed easily with air power if it was deems effective enough to make a difference.

    But most of Iraq's T-72s survived a month of bombing, and weren't really massacred until the ground offensive. Pollack noted that the RG units, which tended to have the best equipment (in theory) weren't as close to coalition bases as frontline infantry and weren't hit as hard.

    .... most of the problem was that the US used its advantages to the full... attack at night when US platforms have the advantage... I have read the ammo used by the Iraqis being called no better than training ammo by people familiar with Soviet ammo. Does not inspire confidence.

    Given the poor quality of much of what Iraq had, it probably would've been crushed without an air campaign and in broad daylight.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18381
    Points : 18939
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  GarryB on Sat 21 Apr 2018 - 8:40

    Given the poor quality of much of what Iraq had, it probably would've been crushed without an air campaign and in broad daylight.

    But that is not right... Saddam was a danger to the whole world... that is why the US went in there... surely you are not trying to say that some little country in the middle east could be beaten by the worlds only superpower after spending 6-8 months building up their forces for the attack... of course it was going to take years to defeat the Iraqis.

    Sort of like in real life--the Iraqis had around 4,000 tanks, only a quarter of them T-72s. But a comparable number of M1s could've been dangerous.

    I have chatted to Americans who went to desert storm and they were convinced they were fighting T-80s... the tactics that were used were used because of what the US knew about Iraqi forces and Iraqi equipment... suggesting replacing Iraqi equipment with Abrams tanks would have resulted in better Iraqi performances is naive, because they would have used totally different tactics if that had been the case... with air control they likely would have used air power and helos to defeat the tanks.

    The ironic thing is that Iran spent a lot of money in the UK to build a new tank... when the CIA stooges were kicked from power the new tank ended up being the Challenger... imagine if it was Iraq that had ordered them instead... and actually got them delivered... of course they still would have lost badly, but in a different way.

    Heavier losses of US ground forces would likely have made them rather more brutal in their attack on Iraq itself...
    avatar
    starman

    Posts : 237
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-08-10

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  starman on Sun 22 Apr 2018 - 6:23

    GarryB wrote: suggesting replacing Iraqi equipment with Abrams tanks would have resulted in better Iraqi performances is naive, because they would have used totally different tactics if that had been the case... with air control they likely would have used air power and helos to defeat the tanks.

    In real life they used air power to degrade Iraqi ground forces, including the RG, for over a month before the ground offensive. But the bulk of RG forces including T-72s remained intact. I suppose had Iraq been armed with M1s they could've resorted to a much longer air campaign but...


    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 980
    Points : 1039
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sun 22 Apr 2018 - 7:58

    Iraq could do nothing to even stand a chance to inflict higer losses on US forces with so much US advantage in technology, troop quality, officer corps quality and terrain advantage.

    The best chances he had was firing all available Scuds on coalition bases after which he would have had B-2s carpet bombing Baghdad within days.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat 20 Oct 2018 - 5:47